chap.escalate.raise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key state change (original moves to 'escalated'), the creation and linking of a successor task, and the non-obvious empty-input default. Permission requirements or reversibility are not mentioned, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 sentences with no filler: the first introduces the concept, the second specifies the important behavioral twist about empty input. Every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter nested mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema gives sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explicit alternatives or side-effect details like linking semantics, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the empty-input default already documented in new_task.input but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for any parameter.

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 action ('Hand a task upwards') and concrete effects: the original task moves to 'escalated' and a new linked successor task is opened. This clearly distinguishes it from generic update or route tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like chap.handoff.propose or chap.task.route.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The description implies use for manual escalation, but with many overlapping siblings (handoff, route, escalate.auto) it fails to help an agent choose correctly.

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