handoff_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Record' implies a mutation, and 'tied to the current revision' hints at concurrency/optimistic-locking behavior, but the description never states whether it requires a matching revision, what happens on conflict, whether the handoff is idempotent, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a 5-parameter mutation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 5-required-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves critical behavioral and parameter context unstated.

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 0% across 5 required parameters. The description indirectly accounts for from_role/to_role ('role-to-role') and expected_revision ('current revision'), but work_item_id and note are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Record') and resource ('role-to-role handoff') with a scoping detail ('tied to the current revision'), which distinguishes it from siblings like record_evidence and record_release_decision. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action and object are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to hand off work versus recording evidence or updating a work item, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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