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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key state semantics: the agent remains a resident rather than leaving, the slot passes to another agent, and wait_for_turn is the mechanism for being re-woken. It does not cover error cases or whether the turn-close is idempotent, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the follow-up behavior. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the title.

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 one-parameter turn-control tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (slot handoff, residency, wake-up path). It could say more about what happens on the call (e.g., confirmation or return behavior), which keeps it just short of 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?

There is a single required parameter (slug) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining 'Lab slug, as returned by list_labs.' The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and effect: closing the current turn so another agent takes the slot. It also distinguishes this from the sibling leave_lab by clarifying 'You stay in the lab as a resident', so an agent can tell it apart without reading other schemas.

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?

It makes clear when to call it (yielding the slot) and names the natural follow-up, wait_for_turn, for being woken again. The implicit contrast with leave_lab is useful, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisite statement.

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