register_strategy_hypothesis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates immutability, append-only journaling, non-execution of tests, no TradingView access, and rejection of reused hypothesis IDs with different definitions. These are concrete behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 only three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds a meaningful constraint or clarification, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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 tool with a rich nested schema, the description appropriately focuses on purpose, side effects, and constraints rather than repeating schema details. It clearly establishes that this is a registration-only action, not a test runner, and explains immutability and ID uniqueness. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool fits into the larger workflow with sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain parameter meanings, but it only generically references 'hypothesis' and 'evaluation contract'. It does add one useful semantic for hypothesis_id (reuse with a different definition is rejected), but it leaves title, thesis, evaluation_contract fields, and parent_experiment_id unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Register'), a specific resource ('one immutable strategy-research hypothesis and its evaluation contract'), and a specific destination ('a local append-only journal'). It also differentiates itself from siblings like register_event_study_hypothesis and run_backtest by clarifying that this is for strategy research and does not run a test.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to persist a hypothesis and its evaluation contract before testing. It also gives a when-not signal by stating it does not access TradingView or run a test. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as run_strategy_experiment or run_backtest for those testing needs.

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