publish_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral facts: `target_device` causes a nudge on that machine (a real side effect), and content must not contain secrets. However, it says nothing about who sees the handoff, whether it requires permissions, whether it is persistent, or what the call returns.

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?

Two sentences plus a short constraint, all front-loaded with the core act before the mechanics. It is dense rather than padded, though fragments like 'No secrets.' and 'also nudges that computer' are terse to the point of ambiguity.

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 nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to put in the payload but omits the outcome: whether the handoff is broadcast, how it is acknowledged, and what comes back. It is the minimum an agent needs to shape a call, but not enough to predict the result.

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?

At 75% schema coverage the schema already documents details/headline/target_device, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the two content modes ('`summary` plus `details`, or `body`') and by mapping free-text prose ('done (commit or PR), in progress, next and blocked') onto the status enum values. The `needs_you` and `bullets` fields remain unexplained in either place.

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 names a specific act on a specific artifact: telling collaborators a structured handoff (done/in progress/next/blocked). That is far more concrete than the sibling names alone (tell_people, send_message), but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to publish a handoff rather than call tell_people or send_message, and no stated prerequisites. The only constraint offered is 'No secrets.' The alternatives between `summary`+`details` and `body` are mentioned as format options, not usage conditions.

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