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

Annotations only indicate that this is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation; the description adds important side effects: build/queue/trigger state is reconciled and pending unclaimed cases can be re-pinned onto the new revision. It also discloses the optional nature of the re-pin via 'when requested.' It does not contradict the 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 sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the side effects are stated compactly. Every clause adds information, so it is appropriately concise.

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?

The description covers the core operation and its main side effects, and the schema fully documents all parameters, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and that is not required. Minor gaps like permission requirements or what happens to the previous live revision are not addressed, but the essential context is present.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful framing by tying revision_id to 'draft' or 'historic' and repin_pending_cases to the re-pinning side effect, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for name and description. Overall it supplements rather than replaces the schema.

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 action ('activate') on a specific resource ('automation revision') and clarifies two distinct outcomes: promoting a draft to live or rolling back to a historic revision. This distinguishes it from creation/update siblings like createAutomationRevision and updateRevision. The reconciliation and repinning details further define the tool's unique scope.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want to change the active revision of an automation, either to publish a draft or to revert. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the activation framing is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the revision-related siblings.

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