escalate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the flagged item shows up under 'Needs you' until resolved, adding useful behavioral context. While it doesn't detail side effects or permissions, the description sufficiently discloses the tool's impact for a flagging action.

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 two sentences plus a parenthetical example, with every sentence adding value. It front-loads the purpose clearly and avoids any filler, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: purpose, when to use, and a behavioral note. It could optionally mention what happens after escalation, but the 'Needs you' note covers the immediate outcome. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The tool's description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The example in the description provides context for 'reason' and 'target', but does not elaborate on syntax or usage beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool flags a collision that cannot be reconciled for a human, with a concrete example (two opposed intents on the same line). It distinguishes itself from forcing a change through, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'commit_mine' or 'resolve'.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (when reconciliation is impossible, specifically when a denied claim's holderIntent conflicts with yours) and what not to do (force a change through). This provides clear context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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