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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent, but the description adds the crucial reversal semantics: the policy is deactivated rather than deleted, revisions persist, and the fallback behavior (path-level targeting reaches every member at once) is disclosed. Missing only permission/scope requirements, which keeps it off a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect front-loaded and the reversibility note following. Every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, effect, and reversibility. Only prerequisites such as required role or scope, and confirmation of what state the archived policy ends in for the caller, are absent.

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 the single team_id parameter is documented with a discovery hint ('from list_teams'), so the description adds no parameter value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Deactivate a team's escalation policy') and immediately describes the resulting routing behavior, which distinguishes it from the neighboring archive_escalation_path tool. An agent can tell exactly what is being archived and at which level.

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 effect and points forward to the alternative ('Its revisions stay and can be activated later'), implicitly routing to activate_team_escalation_policy_revision. It does not explicitly frame when-not-to-use this vs. editing the policy via update_team_escalation_policy, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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