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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe/rename-only profile is partly covered; the description reinforces this by saying only the name changes. However, it does not explain behavior when both strategyId and aiStrategyId are supplied (both are optional per schema), nor what error occurs if neither is passed.

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 with the core action first, then the parameter choice, then the routing to marketplace siblings. Nothing is filler and the ordering 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 3-parameter rename tool with full schema coverage, present annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and where to go otherwise. The only omission is the edge-case behavior around the two optional ID fields.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by stating that strategyId and aiStrategyId are alternatives ('either ... or'), a mutual-exclusion rule the schema does not encode. It stops short of saying what happens if both or neither are sent.

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 ('Updates a strategy's name') and narrows scope to the name field only, which distinguishes it from broader mutators like set_strategy_revision. The sibling naming (publish_to_marketplace / unpublish_from_marketplace) further separates it from marketplace-visibility changes.

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 alternative for a common confusion case: use publish_to_marketplace or unpublish_from_marketplace for public visibility. It does not cover other plausible alternatives (e.g. set_strategy_revision, clone_strategy), but the when-not guidance that is present is concrete.

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