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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real domain context by defining the status vocabulary. However, it says nothing about side effects of a mutation — particularly whether moving to 'live' has prerequisites or real-trading consequences, whether changes are reversible, or what authorization is needed.

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: the action, the valid value set, then usage intent with examples. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is redundant; the examples earn their place by mapping colloquial user phrasing to specific statuses.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential information an agent needs to select and call it. Missing only edge context: prerequisites for 'live', reversibility of 'archived', and what a successful call returns.

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% with no enums, yet the description fully documents the accepted values for new_status, which is the parameter most likely to be misused. strategy_id is left implicit (no format or source guidance), which is the only real gap for a 2-parameter 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 ("Update the status of a strategy") and immediately enumerates the valid status values, which pins down exactly what dimension of a strategy is being mutated. This cleanly separates it from update_strategy (broader edits), delete_strategy, and list_strategies without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("when the user wants to activate, pause, archive, or promote") and backs that with concrete user-utterance examples like 'pause my BTC strategy'. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead for non-status updates (update_strategy) or stating exclusions, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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