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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say the previous name is overwritten, whether the rename is reversible, what error occurs with a missing/unknown ID, or any permission requirement. It does not contradict the annotations — renaming is a mutation and idempotent — but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the parameter alternative and the sibling redirect. There is no filler, restatement of the title, or hedging.

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 single-field rename with three fully documented parameters, an output schema absent by design, and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is failure behavior when neither or both IDs are provided, which an agent would need in order to call it reliably.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but this description actually explains something the schema does not: that strategyId and aiStrategyId are interchangeable alternatives rather than independent inputs, which matters given zero required parameters and additionalProperties=false. It says nothing about the name parameter's length bounds or validation, though the schema already carries those. The either/or clarification is genuinely useful, so this lands slightly above a bare baseline rather than at it.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and a precisely bounded resource: it renames a strategy, not a general strategy update. That narrows it well against the many other update_* siblings. It stops short of 5 only because it never states what the tool does not touch (other strategy fields), leaving the scope boundary implicit.

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 names the conditions for use — supply either strategyId or aiStrategyId — and explicitly redirects marketplace visibility changes to publish_to_marketplace or unpublish_from_marketplace. That is a real alternative-plus-exclusion statement. It gives no guidance on what happens if both IDs are omitted or both are supplied, so it is clear context rather than complete routing rules.

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