update_escalation_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the write-permission requirement, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to existing values not specified in the update (e.g., partial vs full replacement), which would be valuable behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that states the operation and the key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. The cross-reference to create_escalation_chain in the schema is a useful addition without bloating the description.

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 an update tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs full replacement), what happens to omitted fields, or the response format. The cross-reference to create_escalation_chain for the Recipient shape helps, but the description could do more to guide correct invocation.

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 all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, except for the 'destinations' parameter which references create_escalation_chain for the full Recipient shape. This cross-reference is helpful but the description doesn't add much semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('escalation chain'), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_escalation_chain or delete_escalation_chain, but the verb 'Update' plus the resource makes the purpose clear enough.

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 mentions 'requires write permission', which gives some context about when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_escalation_chain or get_escalation_chain. The usage guidance is implied by the verb 'Update' but not explicitly stated.

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