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

Annotations already establish mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds contextual behavior: closing without a completion log leaves 'an ending with no story,' and an open handoff whose object is gone 'keeps billing a person for work that no longer exists.' This enriches the safety profile without contradicting annotations.

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 primary use case, but it is verbose with multiple conditional clauses and rationale. While every sentence adds context, the length is excessive for a tool description. It could be tightened without losing essential guidance, so it earns a middle score.

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 tool with nuanced edge cases (closing others' handoffs, the companion log requirement, and the exclusion of active handoffs), the description covers all relevant scenarios and constraints. No output schema exists, so return values are not required. It gives an agent enough to call correctly.

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?

The schema describes handoff and note; project lacks a description but has a pattern. The description gives guidance on the note ('a note naming what emptied it') and implies the required parameters through context. With schema coverage at 67%, the description adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the missing project description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource: 'Close an open handoff' when the work is done. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like arroway_log (which records residue) and arroway_retire/withdraw (discarding is human-only). The scope and intent are unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says to call it alongside arroway_log, and clarifies when it applies to someone else's handoff ('when your work emptied it'). It also states what is NOT this tool: a handoff still carrying real work must never be closed by a passer-by, and discarding is the human's gesture in the panel. These clear conditions route an agent correctly.

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