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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious runtime context – new requests pick up the revision immediately while in-flight requests stay on their original revision – which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. It doesn't say whether the previous active revision can be restored or what the response contains, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the blast-radius caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information an 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 a two-parameter activation with safety already declared in annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and in-flight impact. It omits any indication of what the call returns or how failures (e.g. missing revision) surface, but with no output schema present that omission is minor rather than disqualifying.

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 the schema even points to list_pipeline_revisions for the revision number and explains the 'entry' key convention, so parameter meaning is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the revision must already exist, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('make an existing pipeline revision the active one') and distinguishes itself from read/list siblings by its activation semantics. The parenthetical ('a rollback, or activating a draft') pins down the two concrete scenarios the tool serves.

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 two parenthetical use cases tell an agent exactly when this tool applies, and the impact statement clarifies the effect of activating. It doesn't name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not, which keeps it short of a 5.

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