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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description is consistent with both ('sets or clears', null clears). It adds real context beyond the annotations: the metadata is validated before starting or updating a bot so missing saved variables are caught pre-deployment, which explains the practical consequence of the write.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, when to use it with an example, and why the metadata matters. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and the action is front-loaded.

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, idempotent mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and downstream validation. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that ownership must be resolvable via the strategyId/aiStrategyId params, though that is documented in the schema.

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 100% and the schema itself spells out the {version:1, requirements:[...]} shape, allOf vs anyOf semantics, and the null-to-clear behavior. The description adds only the AP_API_KEY example, which is a modest supplement rather than new meaning.

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 pair ('sets or clears') and a precise resource ('structured runtime secret requirements for an owned strategy revision'), which is clearly distinct from generic strategy-settings tools. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (set_strategy_requirements), so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'secret'.

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 a concrete trigger ('use this when the strategy code needs non-broker API keys or settings, such as AP_API_KEY') and explains the downstream effect on bot start/update validation. No explicit when-not or named alternative (saved_env_vars, env_var_sets, set_strategy_requirements), which keeps it from a 5.

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