Set official version

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavioral details: it 'replaces the previous designation', clarifies that 'latest and immutable contents do not change', and warns about stale changes via expected_revision. These traits are not inferable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone, giving the agent a solid model of the operation's side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second covers side effects and concurrency guidance. Every clause earns its place and the most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational contract: what is designated, what is replaced, what does not change, and how to avoid stale writes. It does not describe return values or error conditions beyond staleness, but the core invocation semantics are sufficiently complete for an agent to act.

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 only 60% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding meaning to otherwise undocumented parameters: expected_revision is tied to get_site and used for staleness rejection, and version_id is clarified as accepting either current or historical versions. This goes beyond the bare schema, though not every parameter is explicitly explained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Designate') tied to a concrete resource ('a specific current or historical version') and states the unique effect: making it 'the only official version' and replacing the previous designation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like artifact_site_clear_official and artifact_site_get_site without needing to open any schemas.

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?

The description gives clear operational context, explicitly directing the agent to use expected_revision from get_site to reject stale changes. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as clear_official, but the provided workflow guidance is concrete and useful enough for correct selection.

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