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

The description adds important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the strategy latches to paused_drawdown, the equity high-water mark is reset, and it does not immediately re-trip. This meaningfully clarifies the side effects of resuming, consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the primary action and then provide essential context. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers the key state transition, why the action is required, and the high-water mark reset. The main gap is parameter semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain strategy_id or wallet_address beyond their names. The mention of 'owner action' hints at wallet_address's role but never explicitly maps it to a parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Re-enable') and resource ('a paused strategy'), and narrows the context to manual re-enable after a drawdown pause. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like strategy_pause and strategy_status.

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?

The description explicitly explains when this tool is needed: when the drawdown kill switch has latched the strategy to paused_drawdown and owner action is required. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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