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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: it states the blast radius ('the submitted package replaces all existing files'), the protections in play ('active-run and shared-file protections apply'), the idempotency mechanism ('identical request_key and inputs identify the same write'), and a scope boundary ('does not change or start a bot').

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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; every sentence carries information. Slightly compact for a seven-parameter nested-schema tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's destructive scope, protections, idempotency, and bot-boundary. Gaps remain around the rules payload and failure/permission behavior, but it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry weight; it explains 'revision' as the exact current saved revision and 'files' as a full replacement, and 'Supports all Premiss markets and timeframes' loosely covers symbol/interval. But the rules object (watches/buys/sells/safety), strategy_id, and request_key receive no added semantics, leaving key parameters under-documented.

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 ('Replace the complete Python package and rules of an existing strategy'), and the word 'existing' plus 'exact current saved revision' cleanly separates it from the create_strategy sibling without needing its schema.

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 precondition 'using its exact current saved revision' implies this is for editing an already-saved strategy and hints at optimistic-concurrency usage, and 'does not change or start a bot' bounds the scope. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-create_strategy or when-not guidance.

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