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

Annotations mark this as a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world mutation but disclose nothing about side effects. The description usefully adds that the decision becomes a new task-plan section and that the same task lineage is requeued before the escalation resolves, plus the capture-budget vs catalog-capacity distinction for raise_project_cap. It stops short of stating permission requirements or reversibility.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by decision semantics and the ui-review caveat in a logical order with no filler. The final paragraph is dense and specialized but carries genuine disambiguation value rather than redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the decision space and the ui-review lifecycle caveat well. However, against a 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained escalation_id and decision_md leave an agent guessing at two required inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the decision enum values (absent from the schema) and the project_cap range 6..32 with its conditional requirement, but escalation_id and decision_md receive no explanation, leaving two required parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource: resolve a platform-policy dead-end with a structured plan decision, and it enumerates the allowed decision values. It is clearly distinguished from a generic escalation resolver by the 'platform-policy dead-end' framing, though it never names the sibling resolve_escalation to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 implies the triggering scenario (a platform-policy dead-end) and enumerates the valid decisions, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative routing against siblings like resolve_escalation or replan_task. The one 'when not' nuance ('no decision is needed to make room in the catalog') is about semantics of a specific decision value rather than tool selection.

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