set_escalation_policy_active

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the significant side effect that deactivating stops running escalations, plus the edition prerequisite. It does not cover authorization beyond edition, reversibility, or any error behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence pair with zero filler; the destructive consequence is foregrounded immediately after the action, and the edition prerequisite is a tight trailing clause.

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 toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two things the schema cannot: the side effect and the edition gate. Only the sibling-routing and error/permission nuance are missing.

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 schema already documents both id and active. The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint detail, which is acceptable but not additive – 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 pair (activate/deactivate) and the exact resource (escalation policy), so an agent knows precisely what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_escalation_policy or delete_escalation_policy, which keeps it just shy of a 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?

Usage is implied by the toggle semantics, and the Pro-edition prerequisite is a useful gating hint. However, it never says when to choose this over update_escalation_policy (which likely also touches status) or what to do if the edition requirement is unmet.

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