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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that real first orders are placed, that high-risk leverage requires explicit acceptHighRisk consent, that every order is an ActionIntent bounded by key caps and co-sign rules, and that the key is re-checked each run with automatic pausing on revocation. This covers preconditions, ongoing behavior, and the failure/stop condition.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, followed by preconditions and runtime behavior in decreasing order of importance. No filler or repeated schema content beyond the minimum needed for the consent rule.

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 financially consequential 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, invariants, and lifecycle behavior well. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g. a strategy id) or how partial failures during first-order placement are reported.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including the leverage constraint and acceptHighRisk requirement. The description restates the leverage/high-risk coupling but adds little new per-parameter meaning such as how maxAllocationUsd interacts with maxLossPct or what format presetId values take beyond being from list_strategy_presets.

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 ('Start a house preset on a hyperliquid-mainnet wallet') plus the immediate side effect ('place its first orders'). The scope is clear enough to separate it from pause_strategy/stop_strategy, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from start_copy_trade, which starts a different kind of automated trading on the same wallet.

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 concrete preconditions: autonomous trading must be enabled by the owner, perps eligibility confirmed, one strategy per wallet, and leverage must come from the preset's testedLeverage or highRiskLeverage levels found via list_strategy_presets. These effectively define when the call will succeed, but there is no explicit exclusion pointing an agent to start_copy_trade or resume_strategy for adjacent cases.

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