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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the resulting state (version becomes deployable again) and by pointing to the equivalent CLI command, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether running deployments are affected, or whether existing deployments pinned to the version change.

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?

A single sentence with the action and its consequence front-loaded, plus a parenthetical CLI cross-reference. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and a clear annotation set, the description supplies the essential outcome and reversibility context. The only gap is the absence of any note on permissions or side effects, which is modest for a tool of this complexity.

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%; version, profile_id, and profile_name are each documented in the schema, including the id-or-name alternative. The description adds no extra semantics about which identifier form to prefer or how the version number relates to profile scoping, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Lift a version's deprecation") plus the concrete effect ("so it can be deployed again"). This makes the inverse relationship to the sibling deprecate_stack_profile_version unambiguous without needing to open either 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 state transition implies the usage scenario (a version was previously deprecated and should be deployable again), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite or permission note, and no named alternative such as rollback_stack_profile_version or deprecate_stack_profile_version.

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