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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description goes well beyond by explaining that active:false is a soft retire, that KPI targets reject the active flag, and that buyer questions are immutable in place. These are real behavioral constraints an agent would otherwise hit as errors.

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-loaded with the core action, then layered constraints in short declarative sentences with zero filler. Every sentence carries a distinct rule, including the trailing Related pointer.

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?

Covers creation, update, retirement, deletion routing, and per-kind exceptions; with an output schema present, return-value description is unnecessary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds conditional semantics the schema does not state, such as the KPI refusal of active and the buyer_question edit restriction, and reinforces id's create-vs-update role. It stops short of adding format/syntax detail for the kind-specific fields object.

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 pair (creates or updates) plus the exact resource (one strategy item) and enumerates the six valid kinds inline. An agent can distinguish this from save_post, save_keywords, or save_site without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use rules: pass id to update, omit to create, use delete_strategy_item for KPI removal, and buyer questions cannot be edited in place so must be recreated or retired. It also names related tools (get_brand_context, delete_strategy_item), leaving nothing to inference.

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