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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses the real consequences: resuming a project_pause/orphan_pause clears the pause and lets queued refinement run, which can DELETE tasks. It also clarifies the partial idempotency boundary (acknowledgement replay-guarded, end-to-end call not idempotent), which is precisely the nuance the annotation flag cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the guard condition, then parameters, then alternatives, then safety consequences — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense and a few phrasings ('no blocked task becomes invisible') take a second read, but 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema already covering return values, the description covers preconditions, parameter formats, unsafe side effects, and correct alternatives. An agent still has to infer exactly what 'acknowledge' changes about the escalation record beyond the appended note, but nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does: decision_md is defined as a required short why/how note appended to the escalation's detail_md as an audit trail, and escalation_id is documented as accepting either a real escalation UUID or a synthetic `orphan:<project_id>` form. That is substantially more than the bare schema provides.

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 core action (acknowledge/resolve an escalation) is clear from the title plus body, and the description distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the cases that belong to retry_blocked_task, answer_planning_question, and cancel_roadmap_item. The opening sentence is conditional phrasing rather than a plain statement of purpose, which slightly blunts first-read clarity.

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 specifies exactly when the tool applies (handled asks), explicit exclusions (a blocked task's final task_block/operator_action, an open planning question), and the correct alternative tool for each exclusion. Prerequisite conditions are stated rather than implied.

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