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

Annotations already establish it is a non-destructive write with no open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what deactivating does to a running code strategy, whether the call is idempotent, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted filler. The raw HTTP path is arguably noise for an agent, but it does encode that id sits in the path.

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 only bare annotations, the description omits critical context: valid status transitions, effects on active strategies, and any permission requirements. It is too thin for the operation's complexity.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 'id' and 'body.status'. The path template hints that id is the strategy code identifier and status is the mutated field, but the ACTIVE/INACTIVE enum meaning is left entirely to the schema with no added interpretation.

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 ('Update code strategy status'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling put_strategy_code_id that edits the strategy body. It does not clarify which statuses exist or what changing them means, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this versus put_strategy_code_id, put_strategy_code_id_public, or put_strategy_code_id_reset. The agent gets the verb but no selection criteria or prerequisites.

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