Update handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: plain fields replace stored values while append* lists merge without duplicates. It omits permission requirements, whether the handoff must already exist, and error/conflict behavior, so it is not fully 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core mutation semantics followed by the timing guidance. No filler; each sentence adds distinct value.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the merge semantics and when to invoke it, which are the key agent questions. It does not address permissions, create-vs-update behavior, or failure modes, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema covers 60% of the 20 parameters, and the description usefully explains the replace-vs-append* naming convention and the de-duplication behavior, which the schema does not state. It still leaves required params like projectPath/agent and several field semantics without added meaning in the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Change selected checkpoint fields" / handoff), clearly conveying a partial-update operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like save_handoff, prepare_handoff, or resume_task, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

"Call before you stop, with verified progress, next steps and real test results" gives a concrete trigger and expected content, which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to save_handoff/prepare_handoff as alternatives, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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