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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether related entities (stores, reactions, sessions) are affected, or what authorization is needed.

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 fragments with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tight communication.

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, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description should explain consequences and confirm scope (e.g., that this affects only the strategy code and not its folder/stores). With no annotations beyond the hints and no parameter documentation, an agent lacks what it needs to call this safely.

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?

There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not explain what the id identifies or its format. The description never mentions the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it is the code-strategy identifier from the tool name alone.

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 ("Delete code strategy") and the HTTP route confirms the target. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like delete_strategy_code_folder_id or delete_strategy_code_id_store, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the folder / store variants, no prerequisites, and no mention of irreversibility or required permissions. The HTTP line restates the operation rather than advising usage.

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