add_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags '[WRITE ACTION]' and states it 'Returns full created strategy and updated playbook catalog,' which is real value since there is no output schema. But it says nothing about duplicate-name handling, required permissions, validation failures, or whether existing playbook entries are modified.

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 purpose and write-action marker are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the example block is compact and invocation-focused. Slightly long for what it conveys, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect and the return payload, which is what an agent most needs to decide and confirm a call. Remaining gaps (permissions, idempotency) are minor relative to the schema's thorough parameter docs.

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 all ten parameters (including r, wins, total baselines) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a loose enumeration of field categories (rules, description, timeframes, markets) and no format or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add a new trading setup or strategy to your TradeZylo Playbook') and enumerates the fields carried (rules, description, timeframes, markets). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_playbook and get_strategy_stats 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 three example prompts give concrete invocation contexts (naming a strategy, attaching rules, specifying timeframe/market), which makes the intended use clear. However, it never explicitly excludes alternatives or says when not to use it (e.g. versus logging a trade with a strategy), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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