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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing encrypted per-user storage and the auth/memory prerequisite. It stops short of explaining what a delete destroys or how update merges fields, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded before the exclusion list, with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ("in encrypted per-user storage") but efficient overall.

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 need not be described. The description covers purpose, the prerequisite, and the exclusions, and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the action enum. The description echoes the strategy and result concepts but adds no format, length, or update-semantics detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Store user-authored strategy text") and scopes what is persisted (strategy text, timestamps, latest result). The negative clause lists what the tool does NOT do, which helps distinguish it, though it never names the get/set/update/delete actions that the 'action' param enables.

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 provides a prerequisite ("Requires a registered account with memory enabled") and excludes several adjacent capabilities (presets, opportunities, domains, workflow execution), which is useful context. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose get vs set vs update vs delete, and names no alternative tool.

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