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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the crucial nuance that data and credentials are preserved, softening the 'destructive' label and telling the agent the change is reversible. It stops short of describing the returned state after deactivation.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the recovery path and data-retention guarantee following immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a single-parameter state-change tool the annotations plus the preservation/recovery notes cover what an agent needs to act safely. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the server has no active revision.

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?

The only parameter (server_slug) is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the concept of the 'active revision'.

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 ('Stop serving a gateway server by deactivating its active revision') and implicitly distinguishes from archive_gateway_server (which would remove it) and activate_gateway_server_revision. An agent can tell exactly what state change results.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly: use activate_gateway_server_revision to serve it again, and clarifies that history and credentials survive, which is the key decision factor versus archiving. It doesn't explicitly contrast with archive_gateway_server, so not a full 5.

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