swg_decline

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

Despite only a readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the state change (handoff ends, giver's fence lifts), the two failure codes, and their semantics (recover=stop_and_report, retryable=false, fixed next_step). It also scopes guarantees (SINGLE-HOST, no detection of multi-host/mount writers, no auto-merge), which is exactly the behavioral context annotations do not supply.

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 core action and effect are front-loaded well, but the passage is dense and includes a long trailing guarantee-scope sentence spanning multiple caveats. The information is useful but not tightly trimmed.

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?

With no output schema and a single parameter, the description adequately covers the mutation's effect, error modes, retry semantics, and applicability limits. Only finer param semantics are missing, which is a minor gap for this tool.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It implies 'path' identifies the handoff being declined, giving minimal semantic grounding, but adds no format, origin, or validation detail beyond that implication.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'decline the live handoff of a path,' and clarifies the role ('as the successor') and effect ('the handoff ends and its giver's fence lifts'). It is clearly distinct from acceptance/transfer siblings, though it never names 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?

Usage is implied by the 'as the successor' framing and the refusal conditions (handoff_not_successor, handoff_not_live), which tell an agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. decline vs withdraw or reacquire.

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