escalate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the current entry is ended and a replacement is started, which is important mutation context, but it does not cover irreversibility, permissions, side effects, or what happens to the ended entry.

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 description is short and front-loads the action before giving use conditions. Some phrasing such as 'the right entry' and 'the unit' is abstract, but there is little wasted text.

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?

Given four parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It does not clarify the two optional enum parameters, the session lifecycle impact, or how this tool relates to siblings like complete_step or end_session.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains reason only loosely as 'what the step showed' and hints at parent scope/redesign, but it does not explain to_scope, to_situation, or their enum choices.

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: ending the current entry and starting a replacement entry. It is clearer than a tautology and distinguishes escalation reasons, but it does not name or differentiate sibling tools such as complete_step or end_session.

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 gives explicit use conditions: when the unit should not exist, should move to its parent scope, or when a Fix needs redesign. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings, so it is strong but not complete.

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