activate_deployment_revision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return path (object ID like @obj_123 and object-store interaction), but for a mutation it omits key traits: whether activating replaces the currently served revision, required permissions, and reversibility/downtime implications.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the docstring params are compact, but the trailing block about the object store is repetitive ('object ID' repeated across three sentences) and bloats the definition with shared boilerplate.

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 two-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the return/object-store behavior but leaves important gaps: effect on the currently served revision, auth requirements, and failure semantics. Adequate but incomplete.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It identifies both params ('ID of the deployment', 'ID of the revision to activate'), but these are near-tautological restatements of the names and add no format, constraint, or lookup detail.

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 (activates) and resource (revision) plus a concrete effect: 'marking it as the deployment's desired served revision.' This distinguishes it from the sibling activate_deployment (which targets a deployment, not a revision), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as activate_deployment or create_deployment_revision. The agent must infer the calling context from the name alone.

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