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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a precondition-failure mode and the scoping of effects on already-routed requests. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the response shape.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action first, then the failure condition, then the side-effect scope. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the relevant outcome information (routed requests keep their pinned revision) and the failure case. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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%, with both parameters documented (team_id points to list_teams, revision points to list_team_escalation_policy_revisions). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (make active) plus the exact resource (team escalation policy revision), and clarifies the two triggering scenarios (rollback or activating a draft). This cleanly separates it from the sibling activate_* tools for escalation paths, gateway servers, pipelines, and webhook endpoints.

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?

Explains the two when-to-use cases (rollback, draft activation) and gives a concrete exclusion rule ('refused when it names someone who has since left the team'). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or prerequisite lookup tool, keeping it just below a 5.

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