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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: starter files are neutral boilerplate, the returned files manifest should be used, and writes should follow a write -> newest-revision readback -> validation dependency. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description never explains what is destructive, what could be overwritten, or what permissions/conditions govern that behavior. That is a meaningful gap for a tool carrying a destructive annotation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but it becomes verbose and repeats negative usage guidance in multiple places. Much of the workflow guidance is useful, but the text is longer than necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 strategy-creation tool with a simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, alternatives, starter-file behavior, returned manifest usage, and the downstream write/readback/validation workflow. The main missing piece is an explanation of the destructiveHint=true annotation, so it is strong but not 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 100%, so both the required 'name' parameter and optional 'description' parameter are already well documented. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it creates a new strategy workspace with main.py and requirements.txt. It also distinguishes this creation path from editing an existing attached/current strategy and from advice/review/planning turns, so an agent can separate it from siblings like update_strategy, patch_file, and get_file.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('default first-build path ... after the user clearly asks to build/create/make/generate/implement/code a strategy') and explicit when-not-to-use conditions for attached/current strategies, advice, critique, review, planning, and similar turns. It names the correct alternatives for those cases: get_file plus patch_file or replace_file.

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