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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: it explains the consequence of the operation (the promoted revision becomes the one used by triggers and new runs) and the two failure modes. It stops short of stating that the previous live revision is replaced/lost, which is the one destructive detail still left implicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the definition of the target state, then the failure conditions. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what it does, what 'live' implies, and failure preconditions. The main gap is not spelling out that the existing live revision is superseded, and no note on permissions/return behavior.

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 100%, so build_id, revision_name and revision_description are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format, no defaulting behavior), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (promote) and resource (a draft or historic revision) with a clear target (the live version), and immediately defines what 'live' means so the agent can distinguish this from sibling operations like createRevision or updateRevision. It is unambiguous about the direction of the state change.

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 for use (promoting a draft or historic revision to live) and two explicit when-not conditions via the failure cases (already live, active builder run on the draft). It does not name alternative tools or state prerequisites, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives expected at 5.

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