Request Permission Escalation

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

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: requires human approval, is asynchronous, and provides the UI URL. Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent; description adds necessary context for an async human-in-the-loop process.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with primary action, then critical constraint, then usage instruction. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Covers the core workflow and constraints well, but does not describe the immediate return value or confirmation behavior. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the tool returns (e.g., a request ID) would improve completeness.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. Tool description reinforces that target_preset must be higher but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema.

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 requests an increase in permission preset, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_escalation_status by directing the user to that for polling results, and indirectly from other tools by focusing on escalation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (request escalation) and when not (downgrading never requires challenge). Provides the alternative polling tool check_escalation_status and mentions the human approval step with URL.

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