aps_check_escalation_required

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({required, requirement?, reason?}) and the escalation-boundary nature of the check. However, it does not explicitly state whether the check is read-only, whether it mutates any state, or whether special authorization is required.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second gives the return shape, and the third points to the related confirmation tool. There is no filler or 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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly provides the return object shape. Combined with the detailed input schema, this gives enough context for the tool's usage. It lacks edge-case or error behavior, but that is not critical for this simple guard-check tool.

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%, and each parameter already has a helpful description (e.g., delegation, session_id, action_class, action_details). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'check whether an action on a v2 delegation requires owner confirmation before execution.' It names the resource (v2 delegation) and the check semantics, and it distinguishes itself from related tools like create_v2_delegation and aps_record_owner_confirmation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'before execution' of an action on a v2 delegation. It also names the relevant follow-up tool (aps_record_owner_confirmation) to clear the flag when required. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool or mention alternative check tools.

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