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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully corroborates idempotency ('an existing immutable version; no new version is created'). However, it never explains what destruction means here — whether the currently active version is replaced, whether deployments are affected, or that no history/undo exists (that fact lives only in the 'why' parameter schema).

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the key fact (existing version, nothing new created) is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive, idempotent write with no audit trail, the description leaves out the operative consequence (active version is swapped, no workspace history, no way back). One sentence is not quite enough for an irreversible-by-design mutation.

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 100%, so version, bundleId, and why are fully documented in the schema, and 'immutable version' aligns with the version parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (activate) and resource (an existing immutable version), which effectively describes a rollback. It implicitly contrasts with creating a new version, though it never uses the word 'rollback' or the bundle resource from the tool name, so an agent must connect 'activate version' to 'bundle_rollback' itself.

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 clause 'no new version is created' hints that bundle_create_version is the alternative path when a new version is needed, but the description never names a sibling or states when to choose rollback versus deploy_bundle or create_version. Usage is only implied.

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