Update Escalation Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the update is partial or replacing, whether omitted attributes are cleared, or that the nested data.id is ignored — all relevant for a 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope arrive first. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a nested mutation payload.

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 mutation tool with a required nested attributes object and output schema present, the description omits the update semantics (partial vs full), how arrays like group_ids/service_ids are treated, and any caveats around business_hours time zones and end/start times. Too thin given the payload complexity.

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?

"by id" restates what the schema already says about the id parameter, including its note about the missing escalation_policy_id argument. At 50% schema description coverage on a deeply nested data object, the description should clarify the attributes payload (e.g. which fields can be updated, how business_hours behaves), but it says nothing.

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?

Specific verb ("update") and resource ("escalation policy") with the key scoping detail "by id". It clearly separates the tool from create_escalation_policy and list_escalation_policies, though it does not distinguish it from near-siblings like update_escalation_level or update_escalation_path beyond the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the policy must already exist), and no reference to alternatives such as get_escalation_policy for reading or create_escalation_policy for new policies. Usage must be inferred 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.