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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a full replacement (fields omitted from body may be cleared) or a merge, nor any auth or side-effect context.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource; nothing is padded. The REST path is somewhat redundant but cheap and useful for disambiguation.

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 mutation endpoint with a nested 10-field body, no output schema, and no explanation of replacement semantics, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the definition alone what a PUT here overwrites.

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?

Top-level coverage is 0%: the required 'id' and 'body' parameters have no descriptions in either the schema or the description. The nested body fields are documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented path parameter or explain the update semantics of the body.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (code strategy), and the REST path disambiguates it from sibling POST/GET variants. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the operation is identifiable 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as post_strategy_code for creation or put_strategy_code_id_status for status changes. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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