transportSetOwner

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

Even though annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the ownership move, the visibility change for both users, the invariant that objects and tasks remain unchanged, and the open-request prerequisite. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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, purposeful sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary context: the ownership effect, the preservation of contained objects, and the open-request precondition. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter operation, the description captures the core behavior, the state change, and the main precondition. It does not describe failure behavior, response format, or whether the target user must already be a valid transport participant, but for basic call selection these are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'targetuser' and 'transportNumber' at a basic level. The description adds a domain interpretation ('another user', 'request') but does not provide additional format, validation, or operational semantics for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Hand a request over to another user.' It then clarifies the observable effect (new owner sees it, current owner loses it) and explicitly states that contents are preserved, which distinguishes it from release or delete operations among the siblings.

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?

The description gives a clear transfer-ownership context and a concrete precondition ('Only an open request can change hands'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the behavior and precondition make the appropriate usage reasonably obvious among the sibling tools.

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