save_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains persistence, field-level updates (only fields passed), and the statistical caveat about sample size. It could mention return values or error scenarios, but the provided behaviors are transparent and comprehensive for a save operation.

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 well-structured: a main purpose sentence, parameter guidance, and a usage caution. It is longer than a one-liner but appropriate for a tool with 9 parameters, and every sentence contributes actionable information without redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, update behavior, and usage criteria. It does not describe return values, but that is less critical for a save operation. Overall, it provides a complete picture for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds meaning to most parameters: it explains entry_rules (exact condition), assets and timeframe suitability, trades/wins/net_profit as observed results, and notes (including sample size). However, it does not mention the 'description' parameter, and with 0% schema coverage, a small gap remains. Overall, it substantially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Save or update a trading strategy in persistent memory to reuse later.' It specifies a verb (save/update) and resource (trading strategy), and distinguishes itself from sibling strategy tools (list_strategies, get_strategy, delete_strategy) by emphasizing persistence and update semantics.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to save: 'only after it has shown genuinely good results over a meaningful number of trades — not after one or two lucky wins.' It also clarifies the update behavior for existing names. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI to decide when to invoke this tool.

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