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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious behaviors not in annotations: the member-departure refusal and the fact that already-routed requests keep their pinned revision. It leaves implicit why the operation is destructive (that the currently active revision is superseded), which is the one notable gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the failure mode and side-effect following in priority order.

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 2-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the failure path and in-flight-request semantics that an agent could not infer. Only the effect on the previously active revision is unstated.

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% and both parameters document their source fields (list_teams, list_team_escalation_policy_revisions). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and a specific resource (team escalation policy revision), and the parenthetical enumerates the two real scenarios: rollback or activating a draft. The resource is unambiguous against the many sibling activate_* tools, which target different resources.

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?

Gives when-to-use context ('a rollback, or activating a draft') and a concrete precondition/failure mode (refused when the revision names someone who has left the team). It does not point to an alternative when activation is refused (e.g., update the policy first), so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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