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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: the deletion is permanent and requires a confirmation step on name and ID. It does not say what happens to attached backtests/evaluations or whether errors are returned for unknown IDs.

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?

Three short sentences, action first, then the gating rule, then the precondition. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety essentials. It leaves out side effects on dependent artifacts and the failure mode for invalid IDs, which would matter for an irreversible operation.

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 mentions only that the strategy is identified 'by its ID' and that a name should be confirmed, but never states the ID's format, source, or that no other parameter exists — close to the minimum for a single-param tool.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a strategy') plus the keying parameter ('by its ID'). That is unambiguously distinct from the get_/list_/update_ siblings in the same namespace.

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 an explicit gating condition: 'Use this only when the user explicitly asks to delete a strategy', which functions as a when-not rule. It stops short of naming the non-destructive alternative (e.g. update_strategy_status) that an agent should reach for when the user only wants to deactivate.

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