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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: it is a 'state-changing action' and requires 'authorization' first. It stops short of saying what happens to the previously current version or whether the change is reversible, which would matter for a mutation.

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, zero filler, with the when-to-use trigger front-loaded before the mechanics. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, mutation semantics, and auth. It omits error/edge behavior (invalid version, prior-version fate), but annotations already carry the safety profile, so the gap is minor.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the pointer to call get-generation first. The prose restates that version_number is applied to generation_id without adding format, range, or constraint details beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific action (make a specific version the current/definitive content) on a specific resource (an existing generation), which is clearer than the vaguer sibling 'update-generation'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like restore-generation or update-generation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this when the user wants a specific version to become the current content of an existing generation' gives a clear triggering condition and implies the generation must already exist. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs. update-generation), so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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