Group related reasoning trees into a named strategy to organize long-term thinking initiatives and track decision paths.
Create a new Strategy for grouping related trees for long-term reasoning initiatives
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-friendly name for the strategy | |
| description | No | Optional description of the strategy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a new Strategy is created but does not explain behavior around duplicate names, validation, persistence, permissions, or what response the agent should expect after creation. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant filler. It front-loads the action ('Create a new Strategy') and then gives the purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
The tool is simple and parameter schema is sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what happens on success, duplicate-name behavior, and any exclusions. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke 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 100%, with the schema already explaining 'name' and 'description' well. The description adds conceptual context about grouping related trees but no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'Strategy' and adds a clear purpose ('grouping related trees for long-term reasoning initiatives'). This distinguishes create_strategy from sibling tools like list_strategies, get_strategy, and clear_strategy without needing 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?
The phrase 'for grouping related trees for long-term reasoning initiatives' implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not point to alternatives such as list_strategies or get_strategy, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.