escalate_to_human

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the three side effects (Case creation, email linkage, marking the email processed), the contact lookup fallback when contact_id is omitted, and the prerequisite of calling create_contact. It does not state reversibility, permission requirements, or what assign_to_team_id's absence implies.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger condition and the parameter notes; nothing is redundant. The mid-sentence line break in 'link the email to it / and mark the email processed' is a minor formatting blemish.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the mutation's effects and the contact-resolution path. The remaining gap is the undocumented `assign_to_team_id`, which an agent must guess at in an escalation flow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: `reason` gets a content instruction ('should say why') and `contact_id` gets fallback behavior plus a prerequisite. `email_id` and `assign_to_team_id` are left entirely undefined beyond their titles, so half the parameters remain ambiguous.

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 compound action (create a Case with origin Email, link the email, mark it processed), which is a distinct behavior no sibling performs — create_reply and mark_processed do parts of it separately. The agent can identify the tool's identity without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: no grounded KB answer, or topics billing/legal/data loss/security, or an upset customer — a genuinely usable decision rule. It stops short of naming the alternatives it preempts (search_knowledge, create_reply) or stating a when-not case, so usage is clear but not fully routable.

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