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

Even with annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description adds the underlying mechanics: the acknowledgement is replay-guarded but the call is not idempotent end-to-end because resuming a paused project can let queued refinement DELETE tasks. That is high-value behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 size is justified by the tool's complexity and each sentence contributes distinct information (precondition, audit note, resume side effect, blocked-task exclusion, idempotency caveat, ID format). It is dense and somewhat run-on, but not padded.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be described) plus annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, the required audit field, side effects on pauses, the exclusion path with alternatives, idempotency behavior, and accepted ID formats.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: decision_md is explained as a required short note appended to the escalation's detail_md as an audit trail, and escalation_id is documented as accepting either a real UUID or a synthetic `orphan:<project_id>`. Format/validation details are still thin, but this is strong compensation for a bare schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource – acknowledging a handled escalation – and distinguishes it from the sibling paths (retry_blocked_task, replan, close, supersede) that must be used for a blocked task's final block. The opening clause ('only when no blocked task becomes invisible') reads as a precondition rather than a plain statement of purpose, so it is slightly less immediately clear than it could be.

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?

It gives both the when-to-use condition (a handled ask) and an explicit when-not-to-use case with the correct alternatives named: a blocked task's final task_block/operator_action cannot be acknowledged; use retry, platform-policy resolution, replan, close, or supersede instead. This is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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