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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds the HTTP POST endpoint and clarifies a parameter detail, but does not describe the behavioral side effects of activation (e.g., switching the active version). This is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 concise sentences with zero redundancy. The action is fully specified in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a crucial parameter clarification relevant to correct invocation.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations. The description effectively covers the tool's purpose and the key parameter gotcha, making it sufficiently complete. A brief mention of the activation effect could make it fully complete.

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 descriptions cover both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic clarity by warning that bot_id is the API key string, not a numeric id, which goes beyond the schema's description and helps prevent a common mistake.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('a version') and even specifies the REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-agent-versions, delete-agent-versions, or deploy-agent-version.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does ('Activate a version') with no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or references to sibling tools such as deploy-agent-version or save-agent-version.

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