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

With no annotations, the description indicates a state-changing mutation ('return to...'), which is transparent about the core behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or whether it is destructive.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Could be slightly expanded to explain context (e.g., 'backup-only serving'), but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, and the description provides no information about return value, error conditions, or behavior on failure. For a mutation tool, additional context is needed.

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 high (75%), and the description does not add significant meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. The schema explains workspaceId, outputFormat, and idempotencyKey adequately.

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 action (return) and the target state (publisher-owned backup-only serving), making the tool's purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_sulvo_activation or submit_sulvo_activation_workspace, which are forward operations.

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 like start_sulvo_activation or get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for rollback.

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