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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: optimistic concurrency (stale observed coordinates are refused), human approval in the browser, no new build cost, an activation receipt returned, and idempotency_key reuse on uncertain outcomes. The idempotency guidance is consistent with idempotentHint=false, since the key is what makes reconciliation possible.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the mutation semantics first, then preconditions, then next steps. The clipped sentence style is efficient, though the jump between concurrency rules and the approval note is slightly abrupt.

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 7-required-param mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers side effects, preconditions, approval, and verification. Remaining gaps are the meaning of nullable search_revision_id and how table_version_id relates to generation_id.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does explain action values, the semantics of the expected_active_* coordinates (observed, null only when absent, stale refused), and idempotency_key usage. It leaves search_revision_id's nullability, table_version_id, and generation_id unexplained.

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: changes serving search for an exact table version to a qualified generation, gated by an action of activate or rollback. This clearly separates it from build_table_search and configure_table_search without requiring 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?

Gives a clear follow-up path ('inspect_table_search and query_table to verify actual search behavior') and a reconciliation rule for uncertain outcomes. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over build_table_search or configure_table_search, but the activate/rollback framing implies the usage context well.

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