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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint string and nothing about what data is destroyed, whether the deletion is reversible, or what permissions/ownership are required – a meaningful gap for a destructive-store operation.

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, action front-loaded, zero filler. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but nothing is wasted and structure is clear.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description should at least say what 'storage' contains and how it relates to delete_strategy_code_id. As written, an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from the sibling delete tools or reason about consequences.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter. The path template '/api/v2/strategy/code/{id}/store' does loosely indicate that 'id' is the parent strategy code identifier, which is some value beyond the bare schema, but the description gives no format, ownership, or lookup guidance for obtaining 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 description gives a verb ('Delete') and a resource ('code strategy storage') plus the exact HTTP route, so the action is identifiable. However, 'storage' is never defined – it is unclear whether this removes compiled artifacts, cached code, or a saved snapshot – and the near-identical sibling delete_strategy_code_id (which deletes the strategy code itself) is not contrasted, leaving the agent to guess between them.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used versus delete_strategy_code_id or delete_strategy_reaction_code_id_store. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no ordering guidance (e.g. whether storage must be cleared before deleting the strategy).

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