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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false); the description supplies the non-obvious operational behavior: activation takes effect at the gateway's next configuration poll, and scopes omitted by the revision are retired and their credentials dropped. Disclosing that credential-dropping side effect is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action and the effect/timing are front-loaded before the side-effect caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, timing, and side effects, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. It does not touch failure modes (unknown revision, invalid slug) or confirmation requirements, so it is slightly short of 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% and both parameters already point at their source tools (list_gateway_server_revisions, list_gateway_servers). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make an existing gateway server revision the active one') and immediately parenthesizes the concrete scenarios it covers: rollback, activating a draft, re-serving a deactivated server. The activate_* siblings all operate on different resources, and the name plus description make the resource unambiguous without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it (rollback, draft promotion, reviving a deactivated server), which is explicit usage guidance. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it (e.g., versus deactivate_gateway_server or update_gateway_server), so it stops short of full routing.

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