create_escalation_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses only the edition prerequisite. It says nothing about whether creation activates escalation immediately, whether policies notify channels upon creation, whether the policy is enabled by default, validation failure behavior, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects missing information rather than optimal densification.

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?

This is a mutation tool with four required parameters including nested escalation levels and alert filters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what a created policy does (how levels escalate, what channels receive), what 'Pro edition' implies for failure, or what the response contains, leaving an agent without operational context.

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 nested name, active, filters, and levels semantics (scopes, severities, delay ranges, channel requirements) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a new escalation policy'), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_escalation_policies, get_escalation_policy, update_escalation_policy and delete_escalation_policy by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires the Pro edition', which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of when to choose this over update_escalation_policy, how it relates to alert triggers, or what happens if a policy already exists.

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