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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context about what submitting actually changes, whether it is reversible, or what happens on success or failure, leaving it largely redundant with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action. There is little waste, though the description is terse to the point of under-specifying the operation.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and a nested free-form input object, yet the description never explains what a "proven revision" is, what the operation does to the workspace, or how it fits with preflight and rollback siblings. The annotations carry the safety signal, but the workflow context is substantially 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the nested input object has no defined properties, so naming expectedVersion and revisionId in the description is genuinely useful beyond the schema. It still omits their value types and formats, but it supplies the required nested keys an agent must provide.

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 object ("Submit the proven revision"), but "proven revision" is undefined and it never mentions the activation workspace from the tool name. It does not distinguish this from siblings like lock_sulvo_placement_revision or rollback_sulvo_activation.

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 only guidance is that the input requires expectedVersion and revisionId. It does not say when to call this versus preflight, lock, or rollback tools, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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