delete_escalation_policy

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real burden and discloses two important traits: deletion also stops active runs, and the operation requires the Pro edition. It does not state irreversibility, whether run history is retained, or what is returned, so it falls short of full disclosure for a destructive mutation.

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 zero waste. The action and side effect are front-loaded, and the edition prerequisite follows as a compact caveat.

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 single-parameter destructive tool this covers the essentials: what is destroyed at a high level and a plan-level prerequisite. Missing are return behavior and irreversibility, but with no output schema and full param documentation the gap is minor.

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 100% and the sole parameter 'id' is documented in-schema as "Policy ID to delete". The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail (e.g. where to obtain the ID) beyond the schema, 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 ("Delete an escalation policy") plus the consequential side effect ("stop any active runs"). An agent can distinguish this from update_escalation_policy, set_escalation_policy_active, and list_escalation_policies without opening any 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention set_escalation_policy_active as a non-destructive alternative for disabling a policy, so the agent must infer that deactivate-vs-delete choice on its own; usage is only implied by the verb.

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