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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is temporarily disabled, accepts but ignores all arguments, stores nothing, returns nothing, logs nothing, and always returns a COORDINATION_TEMPORARILY_DISABLED error with an incident reference.

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 critical containment warning is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary context: the incident, the storage vulnerability, the expectation to keep state locally, and the return behavior. No redundant details or 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 disabled tool, the description is entirely complete. It covers why it is disabled, what the caller should do instead, that parameters are ignored, and exactly what error the caller will receive. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail the return shape further.

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 0% for the 9 parameters, but the description explicitly states all arguments are accepted for schema stability and ignored, with no supplied value stored, logged, or echoed back. This makes detailed per-parameter semantics unnecessary and fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 the tool creates a structured MACP v2.5 handoff record, then immediately clarifies its actual current behavior: it is disabled and always returns a denial. This gives an agent a precise understanding of both the intended purpose and the effective runtime behavior, distinguishing it from coordination_handoff_read.

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 the agent not to use the tool due to containment, and provides clear guidance: coordination state should be kept in the agent's own repository until private storage is available. This is an explicit when-not-to-use directive with an actionable alternative.

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