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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the link is the access mechanism, that it expires and is erased, and that an identity is required. It does not state whether the write is reversible or rate-limited, but the key security and lifecycle traits are covered.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and mechanism. Every phrase adds a distinct constraint: mechanism, access model, secret exclusion, expiry, identity requirement. 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?

No output schema and only partial parameter documentation. The description covers the core behavior and prerequisites but leaves the read side and key parameters (mode, ttlSeconds) under-explained. It is workable but not fully complete for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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 60%, so the description should compensate. It mentions only that the payload is 'notes' and that the link expires, without clarifying the mode enum, to field, ttlSeconds, or size limits. The schema description for to is present but the description adds no interpretation, leaving mode and ttlSeconds under-specified.

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?

Clear verb+resource: passes working notes to another agent via a private expiring link. Distinguishes the mechanism (private expiring link) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling waystation_handoff_get or waystation_post, leaving some ambiguity about which handoff tool to use.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: passing working notes to another agent. Adds an exclusion ('not for secrets') and a prerequisite ('needs a registered identity'). Lacks explicit routing to siblings like waystation_post, but context is strong.

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