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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail: activating a revision retires scopes left out, drops stored credentials, and refuses retired scope names. But annotations declare destructiveHint=false while the description clearly describes destructive consequences, so this is an annotation contradiction and must be scored 1.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the critical activation side effect. Every sentence earns its place and no unnecessary background is included.

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 mutation tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral consequences of saving and activating a revision. It is not fully complete because it omits explicit routing against sibling tools, but the core operational context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description reinforces the important 'whole scope list again' requirement, but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: saving a new revision of a gateway server, including name, URL or tunnel, and the full scope list. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, such as create_gateway_server or activate_gateway_server_revision.

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?

It implies usage by saying the revision is activated unless activate is false, which gives some when-to-use context. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of create_gateway_server or activate_gateway_server_revision, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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