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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds a valuable non-obvious behavior: a two-step consent workflow around the approved parameter. It does not explain what the initial call without approved does operationally, nor the effect on the currently live version.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with the main action front-loaded. The parenthetical source for version_id and the approval sequence both earn their place. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 mutating rollback with no output schema, the description covers purpose, version source, and consent sequencing. However, it leaves ambiguous what an unapproved call actually does and does not describe the impact on the current live version. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a safe mutation workflow.

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 only 33%, with approved already documented in the schema. The description adds a source for version_id via get_gateway's published_versions, but gateway_id is left unexplained and the approved guidance largely repeats the schema description. This partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Put an earlier published version live again' for a gateway. It clearly distinguishes rollback from publishing or unpublishing by specifying an earlier published version. An agent can identify the tool's outcome without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent where to get version_id ('from get_gateway's published_versions') and gives an explicit approval sequence: call without approved, tell the person, then call with approved true. It does not state exclusions or compare directly against publish_gateway, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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