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 exceptionally: it discloses that content is NOT ENCRYPTED and server-readable, the TTL and default burn-after-read deletion semantics, the returned revoke_key and how to use it, and asymmetric rate limits (writes capped daily, reads uncapped). This is exactly the behavioral profile an agent needs before writing potentially sensitive text.

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?

Front-loads the core action in sentence one, then layers the safety warning, lifecycle behavior, and rate limits in a compact flow. Despite its length, every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact with no 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still communicates the return values (short code, revoke_key), the security posture, lifecycle/destruction behavior, and rate limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents label, content, ttl_minutes, and burn_after_read. The description reinforces the defaults and the once-only behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (store context, get back a short code) and the cross-device handoff scenario, which cleanly separates it from handoff_get (fetch) and handoff_revoke (destroy). An agent immediately knows this is the write side of a transfer flow.

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?

Explains the use case clearly ('give the link to an agent on another device... no copy-paste of long text') and names handoff_revoke for the reversal case. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the sibling channel_send for moving content, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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