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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by describing the downstream effect: webhook blocks start posting to the newly active revision's URL from their next delivery on. It does not state what happens to the previously active revision or whether activation can be undone.

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 tightly written sentences with zero redundancy; the action and its scenarios come first and the behavioral consequence follows.

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 whose annotations already carry the destructive and idempotent hints, the description supplies purpose, scenarios, and the downstream effect on deliveries. Nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing, and no output schema is expected.

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 are self-explanatory, with 'revision' explicitly sourced from list_webhook_endpoint_revisions. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 the specific verb and resource ('Make an existing webhook endpoint revision the active one') and enumerates concrete scenarios (rollback, draft activation, archived revival), which lets an agent separate it from the many sibling activate_*_revision tools without opening a 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?

Three explicit use cases establish when to call it, and the schema points to list_webhook_endpoint_revisions for obtaining the revision number. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to call it (e.g., when the revision is already active), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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