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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the important scoping constraint that only revisions of the currently active strategy are valid targets. It does not say what is destroyed or lost when the active revision is swapped (e.g., in-flight edits or revision-bound context), which is the main behavioral gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers guidance. The final two sentences about source/target ids and reading saved code are dense but relevant to a non-obvious failure mode; slightly long but no 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?

Given a 4-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers target selection and workflow pitfalls well, but leaves the two bare UUID parameters and the consequences of the destructive switch undocumented.

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?

The description explains revisionId vs version, but that is largely a restatement of the schema's own parameter descriptions. With schema coverage at 50%, the two undocumented parameters (strategyId, aiStrategyId) and their role relative to revisionId are left unexplained by both the schema and the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: switch the active conversation to a named revision of the *already-active* strategy. It explicitly contrasts with switch_active_strategy for choosing a different strategy, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Gives concrete selection rules: pass revisionId for an exact id, pass version when the user names a historical version, call switch_active_strategy for a different owned strategy. It also adds exclusions for copy-recent-changes workflows and warns against fuzzy-searching for a source strategy by name.

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