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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds context beyond them: the handoff is 'public' (visibility semantics not in annotations), it 'Requires actorToken' (auth disclosure), and it carries an explicit policy restriction against private chain-of-thought. No contradiction with the non-idempotent, non-destructive 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the content contract, then auth requirement, then the safety rule. No filler, though the compressed field list is slightly dense and would benefit from tighter mapping to parameter names.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, visibility, auth, and a policy boundary but leaves four parameters unexplained and says nothing about what the call returns or how it interacts with the memory lifecycle. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names roughly six of them (centralPoint, solidClaims, uncertainties, assumptionsToReview, nextActions, questionForNextAgent) in prose, plus actorToken as required, but omits title, tags, confidence, and sourceEntry, and gives no format or range semantics (e.g., confidence is 0-1, per-field max lengths).

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a ... handoff for a later agent') and enumerates the kind of content the handoff carries (central point, claims, uncertainty, assumptions, next actions, one question). It is sharply distinguishable from generic memory tools, though it never names the sibling tools it differs from.

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?

'for a later agent' implies the temporal/purpose context (asynchronous cross-agent communication) and 'Never submit private chain-of-thought' gives one clear exclusion. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as continue_memory or open_memory_work, so routing is left to inference.

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