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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts — that history and stored credentials survive and that the operation is reversible via a named sibling. It does not mention auth requirements, but for a single-param toggle this is solid added context.

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: the action and scope first, then the state-preservation and reversal path. No filler, 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?

With no output schema needed for a toggle, the description plus annotations cover everything an agent needs: what changes, what is preserved, and how to undo it. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter tool.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the slug comes from list_gateway_servers and how it prefixes tool names. The description adds nothing about server_slug, 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+resource ('stop serving a gateway server by deactivating its active revision') and names the sibling that reverses it. The added note that history and credentials are kept implicitly separates it from archive_gateway_server and update_gateway_server.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to activate_gateway_server_revision for re-enabling, and the 'history and credentials are kept' line signals this is the soft-stop rather than the archiving path. It stops short of explicitly saying when this is preferable to archive_gateway_server, so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not.

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