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

Annotations only declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description adds the key behavioral fact that 'Every version stays stored', so the agent knows the operation is a pointer switch rather than data loss. It also lists the downstream consumers affected. It does not say how to switch back to a previous version except by re-picking, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect of the call, followed by scope, persistence guarantee, cost, and an example — no filler sentences. The final 'Example: {...}' is slightly redundant given a one-field schema, but it is harmless.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, what depends on the choice, where the id comes from, and cost. Only the return behavior and reversal procedure are unstated, which is a modest gap rather than a blocker.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: generation_id is identified as a generation id obtained from get_image_set, not an image id or set id. The inline example reinforces the single-field shape, though it adds no format detail beyond the schema's uuid pattern.

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 (make this version the one its set uses) and the exact resource/scope (per image within a set), plus what downstream artifacts follow the choice: ZIP, downloads, checks, translations. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_image_set or regenerate_image.

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 description names the source of the id ('a generation id from get_image_set') and resolves the main decision friction by stating 'Free', which tells the agent it is safe to call without cost concerns. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a stated path to undo the selection.

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