update_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that new rules are recompiled automatically, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether updates are reversible, if there are any side effects, or if the operation is destructive to prior strategies.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (update a strategy with automatic recompilation) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the essential action and a key behavioral trait. However, it could mention that the strategy is fully replaced or provide guidance on the expected return value (no output schema).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters (agent_id, owner_id, new_rules are all described in the schema).

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 action: 'Update an agent's strategy.' It also mentions automatic recompilation, which adds a specific behavioral detail. The verb 'update' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_agent' or 'toggle_agent'.

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 specifies required inputs (agent ID and owner profile ID) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for when another tool might be more appropriate.

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