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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that historical rows are never mutated, directly reinforcing the non-destructive nature beyond what the annotations provide. It does not cover permissions or response details, but the added immutability guarantee is meaningful.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the immutability guarantee follows immediately, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 rich annotations, full schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operation and adds an important behavioral guarantee. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, but it could have included a brief usage condition to be fully complete.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description does not add any new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Promote') and resource ('past revision to a new current revision'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like kb_revisions_get and kb_revisions_list by describing a state-changing promotion.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating its effect, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance such as 'use instead of kb_revisions_get when you need to roll back to an earlier version' or any prerequisite context.

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