Decline handoff

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: nothing is reassigned on decline, the proposal is resolved permanently, repeat calls fail with error -32051, and the reason is persisted for the proposer to reroute. It stops short of naming required permissions or who is allowed to decline.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by sibling contrast, terminality, and reason semantics in a logical order. Slightly redundant with schema text on the reason, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect on tasks, the alternative tool, and the error behavior on retry. The only gap is authorization context—who may decline—which an agent might want before invoking.

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 all five parameters including reason and suggested_target are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the reason ('recorded so the proposer can route the work elsewhere') largely restates the schema text rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Decline a proposed handoff') and immediately contrasts the outcome with chap.handoff.accept ('The tasks stay with the proposer and nothing is reassigned'), so an agent can distinguish the two siblings without opening either schema.

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 routes between the two options by naming the alternative it is not, and goes further to describe the terminal condition: a later accept or decline returns -32051, and retrying requires a fresh proposal. It gives the agent both the selection rule and the failure mode.

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