fow_handover

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and destructive=false but say nothing about scope of mutation. The description fills that gap well: read projections are inert, create_handover stores a coherent durable snapshot, and it explicitly does not execute, accept, or rewrite historical work. It does not address retry/receipt semantics beyond deferring to operation help, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded around the read/write split, then routing, prerequisites, effects, and a help pointer in that order. Dense but every line carries information; the fow_capabilities boilerplate is slightly long but justified for a six-route multiplexer.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope split, routing, prerequisites, and non-destructiveness for what is a 6-route, 14-parameter multiplexer. The per-parameter route mapping lives in the schema's "Applies to" annotations, so the description is nearly complete; only route-to-sibling boundary guidance is missing.

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% across 14 parameters, each already annotated with which route it applies to and which are required, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the aggregate prerequisite (project scope or handover ID retained) and route names, without new format or constraint detail.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and two concrete modes: reading lifecycle/progress context versus retaining a durable handover snapshot another agent can resume. The six operation routes are listed, so the tool's dual read/write scope is clear. It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings like fow_packet_inspect or fow_campaign_inspect, which also deal with progress state.

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?

"Route with operation: ..." plus "Prerequisites: Select current project scope or a retained handover ID" gives real selection context, and the fow_capabilities pointer offers per-route help. However, no guidance is given on when to pick ledger_projection versus project_state_snapshot versus project_progress, nor when a sibling tool would be the better entry point. Usage is implied by route names rather than explained.

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