Start Handoff

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, retries, or what happens to existing handoffs. Without annotation, this would be a 1.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters. It lacks structured details such as parameter roles or usage flow. Concision should not come at the expense of essential information.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits the handoff process, prerequisites beyond 'intent plan', expected outcomes, and integration with sibling tools like complete_handoff. The agent cannot infer how to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, yet the description offers no explanation for any of the 9 parameters (intentId, context, mcpProfile, etc.). The single sentence does not mention or clarify parameter purpose, selection criteria, or interdependencies.

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 clearly states the action ('Start') and the resource ('sequential delegation handoff from a delegation-eligible intent plan'). The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'complete_handoff' or 'session_handoff', which may cause ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., complete_handoff, session_handoff). The prerequisite 'delegation-eligible intent plan' is implied but not explained. There are no when-not or context cues for the 9 parameters.

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