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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool always returns a denial, names the security incident, explains why (unauthenticated shared-namespace reads), and guarantees nothing is stored, logged, or echoed. It also pre-empts the obvious follow-up question about the arguments.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, then containment status, then the security reason, then the argument caveat. Each block answers a distinct question an agent would have, and no sentence is filler despite the length.

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 deliberately disabled mutation tool with 7 required params and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: it will fail, why, and what to do instead. Return-value detail is correctly omitted since an output schema exists.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it gives the single most decision-relevant fact: every argument is accepted for schema stability and ignored, none stored or echoed. It does not explain what fields like pioneer_key or session_type would mean once the tool is re-enabled, so it is not fully compensating for the 0% coverage.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb+resource+format: 'Create a structured MACP v2.5 handoff record.' That is clearly a write/serialization operation, distinguishable from coordination_handoff_read or coordination_team_status by the write-first framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 is unusually explicit about when NOT to use it: it is contained, always returns a denial, and 'Coordination state belongs in your own repository until private, owner-scoped storage ships.' It stops short of naming coordination_handoff_read as the path for reading existing handoffs, so routing among siblings is left partly implicit.

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