aps_check_escalation_required

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It describes the return shape ({required, requirement?, reason?}) but does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention auth or rate limits. The behavior is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide a sibling tool reference. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 the moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. However, it could be more complete by describing the meaning of 'requirement' and 'reason', potential error cases, or behavior when no escalation is needed. Overall, fairly complete for a 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it mentions 'V2Delegation with optional scope.escalation_requirements' which is already in the schema). Thus, no additional value.

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 the tool's function: checking if an action on a v2 delegation requires owner confirmation. It specifies the return type and distinguishes from a sibling tool (aps_record_owner_confirmation), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance to use aps_record_owner_confirmation to clear the flag when required, which helps with tool selection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative check tools, though the purpose context is clear.

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