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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: owner-only authorization, an explicit user-confirmation requirement, and the usual source of the branch_ids. It does not describe the response or any partial-failure behavior, but for this simple mutation the additional context is substantial.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted language. The core action and the prerequisite are front-loaded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers action, authorization, confirmation, and id provenance. It could add a note on return behavior or failure handling, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already fully documents branch_ids as an array of branch identifiers. The description adds meaning by explaining that these are usually the ids returned by take_all_branches_offline, which helps an agent know how to obtain valid values.

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: making multiple branches live again. It distinguishes the plural action from the singular make_branch_live sibling and ties the branch_ids to those returned by take_all_branches_offline.

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 gives clear conditions: only when the person says so, and owner only. It also explains where the branch_ids usually come from. It does not explicitly name make_branch_live as the single-branch alternative, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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