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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - it doesn't say what becomes public, whether existing state is overwritten, what auth is required, or what toggling off does. It essentially restates the name plus a raw REST path.

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 terse lines, front-loaded with the action, no padding. The trailing raw endpoint (PUT /api/v2/strategy/code/{id}/public) is somewhat redundant with the name but harmless and mildly informative.

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 tool with a nested body, no output schema, and unresolved parameters, the description is too thin. It omits permissions, side effects (e.g. appearance in list_all_public_code_strategy), reversibility, and response behavior that an agent needs before invoking it.

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%; the only documented parameter (isPublic) is described in the schema itself, while the required 'id' is undocumented everywhere. The description does not compensate - it clarifies neither the id format nor how the body's visibility flag behaves.

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 (Update) and resource (code strategy public visibility), so the intent to toggle public visibility on a strategy code is discernible. The 'code strategy' qualifier implicitly differentiates it from the sibling llm_session/reaction variants, though it never names 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over put_strategy_code_id_status or the other *_public siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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