activate_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool makes a version live and automatically deactivates the previously active version. While it does not mention permissions, side effects, or confirmation, the behavioral traits are sufficiently transparent for a simple activation action.

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 description consists of three concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, the second explains the use cases, and the third provides an auxiliary reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is moderately complete. It explains the effect and use cases but omits the return value or any error conditions. It also does not mention prerequisites like version must be published (though implied).

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (agent_id and version_id are self-explanatory). It provides context by mentioning 'published version,' but no extra syntactic or semantic details.

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 clearly states the action ('activate a specific published version'), the resource ('the live configuration for the agent'), and the effect ('making it the live configuration'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_versions by mentioning its use for rollback or switching, and it implies a distinction from test_version and update_version.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('roll back to a previous version or switch between versions') and references an alternative tool ('Use list_versions to find version IDs'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other activation-like tools, but the context is clear.

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