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

The description indicates this is a state-changing action and that it applies a version to a generation, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It mentions authorization is required, adding context about side effects. It does not detail reversibility or failure modes, but the annotation destructiveHint=false covers some of that.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary intent. The phrase 'After authorization' is slightly redundant but does not bloat the text significantly. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main context: when to use it and what it accomplishes. It does not mention edge cases like invalid version numbers, but that is not required for basic usage. The sibling tool list helps contextualize its role among generation actions.

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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters with identical text to the description. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the parameter roles, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since there is no additional clarification.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: setting a specific version as the current content of an existing generation. It distinguishes this action from other generation-related tools by focusing on the version assignment.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user wants a specific version to become the current content. This provides clear guidance and implicitly differentiates from tools like update-generation or archive-generation.

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