Request Human Escalation

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

With destructiveHint=true annotation already signaling write potential, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: idempotency, expiring nature, requester identity, and the self-approval restriction. It does not detail response behavior or authorization requirements, but adds substance beyond the annotation.

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 are tightly packed with useful information. The most important action and constraints come first, with zero fluff.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description provides a solid overview but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how the idempotency/expiration behave in practice. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 explains the purpose of requester and evidence parameters, and hints at idempotencyKey and ttlMs via 'idempotent' and 'expiring.' However, several parameters (taskId, reason, severity, requiredReviewerRole, approvalContextDigest) receive no added meaning, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'create' and a clear resource 'human-review request', while adding key attributes like idempotent, expiring, requester identity, and evidence. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_human_escalations and satisfy_gate.

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?

The description implies usage for requesting human review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like satisfy_gate or approve_protected_action. The note that agents cannot approve their own requests provides a usage restriction, but no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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