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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that triggers and/or storage can be reset, without saying what state is lost, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Useful but thin given a mutation tool.

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 compact phrases, front-loaded with the action and followed by the HTTP route. No filler, though the route adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

A mutation tool with a nested required body, no output schema, and no annotations explaining effects. The description never says what a reset actually does to the strategy's runtime state or what is returned, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the nested body properties carry inline descriptions ('Set true to reset store/triggers') and the description's 'triggers and/or storage' wording maps to those two booleans. It does not explain how the two flags interact (both required, set false to skip).

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 ('Reset') and resource ('code strategy triggers and/or storage'), so the operation is identifiable. It is not differentiated from sibling mutations like put_strategy_code_id_status or delete_strategy_code_id_store, but the action itself is clear.

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 reset versus using put_strategy_code_id (edit), put_strategy_code_id_status (enable/disable), or delete_strategy_code_id_store. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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