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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds the precise condition for safe retries ('retries are safe only when draftId, expectedRevision, and clientRequestId are identical'), which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not describe the destructive side effect in detail, but that is partially covered by destructiveHint.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the retry condition adds high-value information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, key parameter semantics, and idempotency conditions. It does not mention explicit side effects beyond the destructive hint, but given the simple activation action and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of expectedRevision ('current') and clientRequestId ('stable') and implies draftId is the identifier, providing semantics that the bare schema lacks. It does not fully define each parameter but gives enough operational meaning.

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 ('Activate') and a precise resource ('the exact private draft the owner reviewed'), making it clear this tool activates a specific draft style. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_artifact_style (read) and preview_artifact_style (preview) by focusing on activation after review.

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 description provides usage context ('after review') and operational guidance ('Use the current expectedRevision and a stable clientRequestId'), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The distinction from publish or preview tools is implied but not stated.

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