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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: full-document replacement rather than a diff, activation defaulting to true, that pipelines naming the key pick up the new active revision, and that already-routed requests stay pinned to their old revision. This revision-pinning semantics is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and immediately followed by the activation and revision-pinning consequences. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining behavioral gaps (revision semantics, activation default, downstream effects on pipelines and pinned requests). An agent has enough to invoke and predict consequences.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the activate default ('unless activate is false'), which the schema already states, and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema for nodes, repeat, working_hours or path_key.

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 (save a new revision of an existing escalation path) and immediately clarifies the operation mode with '(the whole document again, not a diff)'. This distinguishes it from create_escalation_path (new path) and from activate_escalation_path_revision (activation-only sibling).

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 makes clear this applies to an existing path and bundles activation by default, which is strong context. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to activate_escalation_path_revision when activation is wanted separately, nor name create_escalation_path as the alternative for new paths.

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