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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the user-consent gate, the draft-reversion side effect of a changed spec, that earlier backtests are retained but tested on the old rules, that the server validates the spec and returns a refusal reason, and that POLYRANK_API_KEY is required. Nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true, and the retained-backtests note correctly explains why destructiveHint=false is defensible despite a spec replacement.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the consent requirement and write nature come first, the side-effect explanation second, operational facts last. The telegraphic parenthetical style is efficient; a slightly firmer sentence structure would read better but nothing is padded.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, this covers the decision-critical unknowns: consent, return-on-refusal, side effects on existing backtests, and auth. The missing piece is what a successful response returns (the updated strategy? the new draft id?), which matters because a changed spec converts the object to a draft.

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 25% (only confirm is documented in-schema), but the description compensates by explaining the semantics of name (rename), spec (replace, with the draft consequence), and the implied id (a saved strategy). It doesn't describe the spec object's shape at all, beyond noting server-side validation, which is the one real gap for a nested-object parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing ("Rename a saved strategy and/or replace its strategy spec") that immediately separates it from polyrank_get_strategy, polyrank_list_strategies, and polyrank_create_strategy. The scope of mutation is bounded explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what it edits without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("ask the user before calling, then pass confirm: true") which is real when-to-use guidance, not just restated purpose. It does not say when *not* to use it (e.g., for a strategy id that isn't yours, or to create vs. edit), so it stops short of naming alternatives.

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