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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavior: a handoff is a relayed message rather than an actionable task, and the recipient's agent must not act on it. It also discloses a specific projectName precedence rule based on a local config file, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 compact, roughly four sentences, and front-loads the core purpose and the critical 'not a task' distinction. The final sentence about the workspace config is dense but earns its place as important behavioral guidance. There is minimal waste, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to select and invoke the tool correctly: purpose, recipient semantics, optional linking, and project selection behavior. It omits explicit alternative routing and return/error expectations, but the required parameters are documented in the schema and the behavioral caveats cover common misuse.

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 coverage is high at 86%, placing the baseline at 3, but the description adds real semantic value. It explains epicKey and taskKey as linking options, inReplyTo as replying to a previous handoff, and recipient targeting as a person or the whole project. It also adds context for projectName, which has no description in the schema, by specifying the local-config precedence.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a handoff for a teammate' and defines it as a markdown note addressed to a person or the whole project. It explicitly differentiates it from task-related siblings with 'This is NOT a task — it is a message.'

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 gives clear context by stating what a handoff is not and how the recipient's agent must behave: it will relay the note but must not act on it unilaterally. It also indicates when optional epicKey, taskKey, and inReplyTo links are appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools beyond the task comparison, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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