activate_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the effective side effect ('marking it as desired to be served') and that it avoids a new revision, plus the return shape, but is silent on permissions/authorization, idempotency, and reversibility for what is a 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?

The core purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The remainder is repetitive object-store boilerplate ('The output is automatically stored...', 'Use the returned object ID...') that restates the same idea multiple times and dilutes the signal.

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?

It covers purpose, usage, and return handling, but with no annotations and no output schema it should do more: it omits auth requirements and, importantly, fails to disambiguate from the sibling 'activate_deployment_revision', which is the biggest risk for this 1-param mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. ':param deployment_id: ID of the deployment.' merely restates the schema title ('Deployment Id') and adds no format, identifier source, or lookup guidance.

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 ('Re-activates a deployment's current active revision') and even scopes it as the current active revision without pushing a new one. However, it never acknowledges or distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'activate_deployment_revision', which an agent selecting between the two would need.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'to bring a deactivated deployment back online without pushing a new revision', which contrasts with a revision-pushing flow. No explicit when-not or named alternatives (e.g., deactivate_deployment, update_deployment) are offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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