save_strategy

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds only 'returns a confirmation' and echoes the create-new semantics that align with idempotentHint=false; it says nothing about overwrite behavior if the strategy already exists or any permission requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the alternative and return behavior following. Three tight sentences, though the JSON-acceptance clause is slightly redundant given the schema.

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 one-parameter create tool with annotations already carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the create/delete pairing, and the return confirmation. Adequate, with only minor gaps around idempotency/overwrite semantics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single strategy_json parameter is already fully documented. The description's 'accepts a full strategy JSON definition' merely restates the schema field, adding no format, shape, or example beyond what structured data provides.

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 ('Save a new deployment strategy configuration to Spinnaker') and grounds it with concrete examples (red/black, rolling push, canary). It also names the contrasting sibling delete_strategy, so an agent can distinguish create from remove without opening either 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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('create a reusable deployment strategy') and routes the removal case to delete_strategy. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it relates to list_strategies or save_pipeline, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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