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

Annotations already mark the operation as mutating and idempotent, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the previously active revision becomes historic and can be re-activated, and idempotent promotion still applies revision_name/revision_description. This gives an agent a clear mental model of side effects and reversibility without contradicting 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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action first, then the state consequence, then the idempotent edge case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with complete schema documentation and annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description covers the important state transition, reversibility, and idempotent behavior. No output schema exists, and none is needed for correct invocation at this level.

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 value by explaining that revision_name and revision_description are applied even when promoting the already-active revision, which is a behavioral subtlety not obvious from the schema alone. It doesn't need to restate each parameter's schema description.

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 and resource: 'Make a skill revision the active (live) one,' and clarifies the state transition (previously active becomes historic). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling promoteRevision, so it stops shy of full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as promoteRevision, updateSkillRevision, or createSkillRevision. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional use cases beyond the core action.

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