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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that the previously active revision becomes historic and can be re-activated, plus the specific idempotent behavior that name/description are still applied. It does not mention auth requirements or response shape.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the state-transition consequence and the idempotency edge case. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral concerns: what changes, reversibility of the previous revision, and idempotency. It omits permission/authorization context and any indication of the response, but no output schema exists so return-value detail is not required.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining that revision_name and revision_description are applied even when the promotion is a no-op idempotent call, which is meaningful semantic context the schema does not convey.

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 ('Make a skill revision the active (live) one') and clarifies the resulting state change. An agent can distinguish this from updateSkillRevision, createSkillRevision, or the generic promoteRevision without opening any schema.

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 explains the state transition and the idempotent edge case, which implicitly tells the agent when the call is safe to make. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like updateSkillRevision or promoteRevision, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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