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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false annotations: it enumerates the exact HTTP status codes and their meanings, the credential scope (publish) required, and the workspace-claim prerequisite with its 403 outcome. This is the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences ordered purpose-first, then error conditions, then auth, then workspace prerequisite. No filler; every sentence carries operational 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers outcome semantics, failure modes, permissions, and gating. An agent has everything needed to predict success or failure before calling.

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 coverage is 100% and the model_id description already explains it comes from a list_hosted_models result. The prose adds no further meaning about the parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact semantic: re-activating the version that was active before the current one. This clearly separates it from promote_hosted_model_version and upload_hosted_model_version, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for invoking it (a prior active version must exist, or the call returns 409) and a feature-gating condition (404 not_released). It does not explicitly contrast with the forward-promotion alternative, so the agent must infer when rollback is preferable to promote.

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