create_escalation

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 key behavior: escalating ends the ticket, which is a terminal and irreversible action. While it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or other side effects, for a simple escalation this is adequate and not contradictory.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the purpose, then provides conditions, then states the consequence. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, and the terminal effect. Minor gaps like return value or state change are acceptable given the simplicity and the explicit 'ends the ticket' statement.

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?

The schema has only 33% coverage (only 'reason' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'priority' or 'ticket_id' mean or how they affect the escalation. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 escalates a ticket to a human agent, with explicit conditions for when to use it (docs don't cover it, account changes, churn risk). It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_reply or set_category by framing this as a terminal action for unresolved issues.

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 lists when to use the tool (when the agent cannot resolve it) and provides concrete examples. It also states the consequence 'This ends the ticket', which implies when not to use it (when the ticket can still be resolved) and signals the finality of the action.

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