Propose handoff

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description restates the proposer-assignment precondition, but that same detail also appears in the schema's tasks description, so it adds little new behavioral context and says nothing about what a successful proposal produces or how it is resolved.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence partially duplicates the constraint already in the tasks schema description, which is a minor redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation coverage of return behavior, the description establishes the eligibility precondition but omits what the proposal returns and how it proceeds. It is adequate to place the call correctly but not complete for the full lifecycle.

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 every parameter (workspace, from, to, tasks, summary, context_links) is already documented, including error codes -32052 and -32050. The description adds only the cross-cutting constraint that all tasks be assigned to the proposer, which is the baseline expectation 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Propose handing one or more tasks to another participant or a group') and names the follow-on context needed to pick them up. It clearly separates the tool from siblings like chap.handoff.accept and chap.handoff.decline, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 supplies one real eligibility rule — tasks must be currently assigned to the proposer — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to propose versus accept/decline a handoff, or on the proposal lifecycle, leaving usage largely inferable from the tool name.

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