chap.handoff.propose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the action as a *proposal* rather than a direct transfer, and it discloses the task-assignment constraint. It does not detail the downstream proposal lifecycle, but the sibling tools and the word 'propose' make the core behavior reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the main action, and adds only the essential constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 handoff-proposal tool, the description plus 100%-covered schema provide enough to call it correctly: recipient, proposer, tasks, and context fields are all documented. It could be more complete by explaining what happens after the proposal is submitted, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond framing the task metadata as 'context needed to pick them up'; the schema already documents each field, including error codes and examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Propose handing') and identifies the resource (one or more tasks to another participant or group). It also includes the key constraint that every task must currently belong to the proposer, which helps distinguish it from related tools like chap.task.route or chap.handoff.accept.

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 to propose a handoff with enough context for pickup. It states a strong precondition (tasks must be assigned to the proposer), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases relative to siblings like chap.handoff.accept, chap.handoff.decline, or chap.task.route.

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