save_handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Write a session handoff,' which implies mutation but does not disclose whether it creates a new entry, overwrites the latest handoff, or how it interacts with siblings like latest_handoff. It also omits any consequences (e.g., persistence, idempotency) or return behavior. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately enumerates the content fields and the purpose. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff 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 write tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core intent but lacks details such as idempotency (does it overwrite the latest handoff?), session scoping, and any preconditions. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description alone does not address edge cases like repeated calls. It is sufficient for a straightforward usage but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps each parameter to its meaning: summary='what was done', next_steps='exact next steps', blockers='current blockers', open_questions='open questions'. This gives agents a clear semantic for the required parameters and optional fields, adding substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Write') and resource ('session handoff') and enumerates the content: what was done, exact next steps, blockers, open questions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_note (general notes) and log_decision (decisions), even though no alternatives are named.

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?

Implies usage context by stating 'The next session or teammate starts from this instead of zero,' suggesting it should be used when ending a session to provide continuity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related write tools like save_note or log_decision, nor mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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