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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it is an 'exit trigger that unwinds a held position,' indicating position-closing behavior. It also discloses a critical constraint ('At least one of stop_loss_pct / take_profit_pct / trailing must be set'), which is not available in the schema. A minor gap is that it does not describe execution details like on-chain transactions or gas costs.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured, with a leading definition, a single explanatory paragraph, and no redundant filler. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes either to purpose, usage, or constraints.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description gives a clear purpose, key parameter guidance, and a pointer to the sibling for full configuration. However, with 15 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description remains incomplete for a user who does not already know strategy_stoploss_create. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaning for only three parameters (stop_loss_pct, trailing, take_profit_pct) and references strategy_stoploss_create for the rest, but does not explain many other parameters such as risk, allow_short, direction_mode, or regime_override. The reference to a sibling is helpful but does not make the description self-contained for 15 parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a hedge strategy -- an exit trigger that unwinds a held position.' This is a specific verb+resource with a clear concept. It also distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling by explicitly referencing strategy_stoploss_create and explaining the hedge framing as an 'active risk-offset trigger.'

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Shares the stop-loss executor -- identical config/mechanics to strategy_stoploss_create' names the sibling, and the description explains parameter usage for different market scenarios ('set stop_loss_pct / trailing to shed exposure on an adverse move, or take_profit_pct to lock in a favourable one'). This gives clear context for choosing and configuring the tool.

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