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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructiveHint=true; the description adds useful behavioral detail: it may close/park the source session, explains the write-tier approval flow, warns against inventing paste rituals, and clarifies that approval can be recurring or one-time. It does not fully describe what happens to the target session after transfer.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, gives trigger phrases, names composed sibling tools, and then adds a compact approval-protocol note. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no filler.

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 complex, destructive composite tool with 10 parameters, the description covers triggers, composition, source-side side effects, and the approval flow, and the schema documents each parameter thoroughly. It does omit return-value behavior, but with no output schema and good schema coverage the definition is still largely complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's language maps onto the main parameters, but it does not add meaningfully beyond the schema's already detailed parameter descriptions.

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 concrete operation: transfer work for THIS operator by pushing an instruction to a target coding session or spawning one, while optionally closing/parking the source. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the tools it composes: create_attention_directive or request_attention_spawn, plus optional request_attention_close.

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 explicit trigger phrases such as 'move this to a fresh Grok' and 'hand that off to Claude', and it tells the agent to call it on the first clear ask and not re-ask. It is missing an explicit when-not-to-use statement for the simpler sibling tools, so it falls just short of perfect usage guidance.

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