Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent, not read-only), but the description goes well beyond them with genuinely useful behavior: no reactivation path, the row stays listed with active false, repeat calls succeed, another account's id reads as not found, deployed bots keep running on their own copy, and a write-scope key is required. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core semantics (archive, not delete) before alternatives and edge cases, and every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with dash-separated clauses, but no sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with an output schema already available, the description supplies everything an agent needs: selection guidance, auth scope, idempotency, failure mode, and downstream side effects on deployed bots. Return-value format is legitimately left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is a patterned UUID, so the schema carries the format burden. The description adds real value by stating the id's origin (get_my_strategies) and the cross-account not-found behavior, which the schema does not express.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Archives one of your strategies') and immediately disambiguates the name: although called delete_strategy, the operation turns the strategy inactive rather than removing it. It also names the sibling it is not (update_strategy), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use it to retire a strategy') and an explicit alternative with its condition ('to change one use update_strategy'), plus the source of the required id (get_my_strategies). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.