chap.handoff.accept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core mutation—tasks are reassigned—but does not mention outcome reporting, error cases, or permissions. The handoff_id parameter description adds some error context, but the main description is minimal.

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?

Two short, direct sentences with no filler. The action and consequence are front-loaded, making the description immediately scannable for an agent.

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 straightforward handoff-acceptance action, the description plus the fully covered parameter schema is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit usage alternatives and output details, but the core semantics are clear and no critical missing piece prevents correct invocation.

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 all parameters in detail, including defaults for accepted_task_ids and the -32051 error for already-accepted handoffs. The description contributes only the general notion of accepting tasks, adding little beyond the schema.

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 ('Accept') and resource ('a proposed handoff'), and clarifies the effect: accepted tasks are reassigned to the accepting participant. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings chap.handoff.propose and chap.handoff.decline.

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 gives clear context: use this when a handoff has been proposed and the participant is accepting it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the acceptance wording makes the intended condition obvious.

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