Update Escalation Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that rules/time_restrictions are replace-or-omit semantics, that non-default paths must retain a condition or return 422, or that the default path has restricted fields — all of which live only deep in schema property text.

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 short sentence with the resource and addressing key front-loaded; there is no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which costs it the top score.

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 over a very large nested payload, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, the description omits the high-stakes operational context an agent needs before calling it — 422 validation rules, default-path restrictions, and fields silently dropped when not enabled for the team — leaving the agent to discover these only by reading deeply nested schema text.

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?

Only two top-level parameters exist and schema description coverage is 50% (the `data` wrapper has no description), so the description needed to compensate and does not — it merely restates that `id` identifies the path. Practically all useful parameter meaning (including that the nested `data.id` is ignored) comes from the schema, not the description.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Update) and resource (escalation path) and states the addressing key (by id), which distinguishes it from get_escalation_path, create_escalation_path and list_escalation_paths. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short 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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of create_escalation_path or update_escalation_level_paths, no prerequisites such as the need to fetch the current path first, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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