Escalate To Operator

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

All annotation hints are false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the escalation is 'durable,' implying a persistent side effect, but it does not mention whether the escalation is reversible, notifies external parties, or what the response looks like.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and a relevant constraint right after. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The description is serviceable for a simple escalation record, but with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters (three enums), it leaves severity meaning, response_format behavior, and post-call outcomes unexplained. An agent could call it correctly using defaults but would be guessing about semantics.

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. The only parameter detail, 'the reason accepts at most 1,000 characters,' merely repeats the schema's maxLength. No semantics are added for session_id, severity, caller, or response_format.

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: 'Record a durable operator escalation.' It also gives the condition ('sessions that require human judgment or external intervention') and is clearly distinct from the sibling session_* management tools.

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 phrase 'for sessions that require human judgment or external intervention' provides a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top tier.

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