record_handoff

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

With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds real value by disclosing the replacement semantics — the prior handoff is deleted in the same call and a project holds one handoff, not a list. It also names the `replaced` count. It stops short of saying whether the removal is recoverable, which matters given destructiveHint=false despite a documented delete of prior content.

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-loaded with the core action, then the replacement rule, then what to write. Each sentence earns its place, though the third sentence partially duplicates the schema's parameter description.

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?

An output schema exists and the description already references the `replaced` return field, so return values need no further explanation. For a one-parameter write tool, everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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% for the single `content` parameter, and the schema already spells out the same guidance (a few sentences, replaces the previous handoff). The description restates rather than extends that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (records) and resource (this session's handoff), plus the critical scoping fact that it replaces the previous handoff. That single-slot semantics clearly separates it from record_memory, which appends discrete memories.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call it ('what the next session needs to pick the work up: what is done, what is in flight, and what to do first'), which is actionable. It does not explicitly name record_memory as the alternative for non-handoff memories, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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