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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the swap is atomic with no downtime, and the version being replaced is retained rather than lost, which materially changes the agent's risk calculus.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the parameter source, then the confirmation precondition. No filler, though the parameter-source sentence is the weakest and partly redundant with the schema.

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 exists, but the description covers what an agent needs for a destructive mutation: what changes, that it is atomic and downtime-free, that the old version survives, and that user confirmation is required. The only gap is the unresolved deploy_list vs deploy_begin conflict.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds a source for deploy_id, but it names deploy_list while the schema says deploy_id comes from deploy_begin (26 characters) – a discrepancy that is more likely to confuse than help.

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 and resource ('Schaltet eine früher veröffentlichte Version ... wieder live') and adds the mechanism (atomarer Tausch, ohne Ausfall). An agent can distinguish this from deploy_publish/deploy_preview/deploy_begin without opening any schema, since it is explicitly a revert of an already-published version.

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?

Gives a clear precondition chain: clarify with the user which version is meant, obtain confirmation, then use a deploy_id from deploy_list. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. deploy_publish) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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