update_escalation_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the Pro edition gating, which is genuinely useful. However it omits that all five parameters are required, meaning this is effectively a full replacement rather than a partial patch — an important behavioral trait for an update tool. It also says nothing about whether omitted/prior levels are replaced, side effects on running escalations, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with the edition requirement as a second clause; every element earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a tool with nested object parameters, but there is no filler.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate — yet it only lists field names. An agent gets no explanation of replacement semantics, interactions with the sibling set_escalation_policy_active, or what happens to in-flight escalation runs.

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% and the nested levels/filters constraints (delay ranges, 1-5 levels, scope kinds, severities) are fully documented there. The description merely echoes the top-level field names, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so 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 (update an existing escalation policy) and names the mutable fields, which distinguishes it from create_/delete_/get_escalation_policy siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with set_escalation_policy_active, which overlaps on the 'active' field.

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?

'Update an existing escalation policy' implies a policy must already exist, and 'Requires the Pro edition' gives a precondition. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus set_escalation_policy_active for a simple toggle, or versus delete+create.

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