Creates a local escalation brief for a ticket, recording assessment-based reasons and notes on the required human action; nothing is sent or delivered externally.
Write a LOCAL escalation brief. Target and reasons come from the assessment; notes describe the required human action. Not delivered to Payments, a team lead, or any real system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| ticket_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false and idempotent=true; the description adds meaningful context by stating the artifact is local and reaches no real system, which directly shapes agent expectations about side effects. It does not say whether repeated calls overwrite a prior brief, leaving the idempotency claim unexplained.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds information. Nothing redundant.
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?
For a simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essentials: locality, content sourcing, and note semantics. The dangling mention of a 'target' not present in the schema and the absence of ticket_id guidance are the only gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains that notes describe the required human action, which is genuinely helpful. But ticket_id is never mentioned, and the reference to a 'target' that has no corresponding schema property risks confusing an agent about what to pass.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Write a LOCAL escalation brief') and makes the scope unambiguous by naming what it is not delivered to. It is distinguishable from save_ticket_assessment and save_response_draft by the escalation-brief framing, though the siblings themselves are never named.
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?
'Target and reasons come from the assessment' implies an ordering dependency on the assessment step, which is useful. However, it never states when to escalate versus drafting a response or KB article, nor any preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.