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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: full-document replacement rather than a diff, activation defaults to true, in-flight requests stay pinned to their old revision, and an unactivated path cannot be referenced by an active pipeline. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before mutating.

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, front-loaded with the mutation and its default behavior, then the downstream effect on pipelines and pinned requests. No filler.

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?

Covers the versioning model and activation side effects well for a nested-object tool with no output schema. Return payload and error cases are left implicit, but the schema and read_reference pointer cover input detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, including activate's default and path_key's immutability. The description only reinforces the activate semantics and does not add syntax or constraints the schema lacks.

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 (Save a new revision), resource (existing escalation path), and scope (whole document again, not a diff), plus bundled activation. That phrasing separates it from create_escalation_path and from activating a revision via a separate tool.

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?

Conveys consequences ('pipelines that name the key pick up the active revision') but never says explicitly when to choose this over create_escalation_path or activate_escalation_path_revision, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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