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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent and openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: the target version goes live immediately without a new check, and authentication is required. It does not say what happens to the currently live version or how failures surface, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded, then the selection constraint and the auth prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is 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?

With annotations covering safety semantics and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to supply action, constraint and prerequisite — all of which are present and precise. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters, but the description adds a real constraint not present there: version must be one that was previously live (rollback: true). That narrows the valid domain of the version argument meaningfully beyond 'the version number to make live again.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Make an earlier version of a hosted space live again.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like versions (which lists them) and publish (which creates new deployments), and the audience can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It states a clear precondition: only a version with rollback: true (visible via the versions sibling) can be selected, and sign-in is required. That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it never explicitly frames the inverse (what to do when the version is not rollback: true) or names the sibling to consult.

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