grokbot_end_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the handoff is cleared 'without waking the box,' i.e. non-disruptively. It does not say what happens to the agent/request state, whether the call is idempotent, what error occurs if the handoff is not actually stuck, or what is returned, so significant gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and the key constraint are both stated immediately. Nothing needs trimming.

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 small 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose plus one behavioral nuance, which is close to adequate. It still leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings, failure behavior, and how it relates to sibling recovery tools, so it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'trigger' is documented in the schema) and the description adds no parameter meaning at all, not even for agent_id or request_id. Although those identifiers are largely self-evident, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage as required.

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 verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('stuck desktop handoff / captcha / login'), and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('without waking the box'). An agent can understand the operation without opening the schema, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting this with near-neighbors like grokbot_resolve_widget or grokbot_interrupt.

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 phrase 'stuck desktop handoff (captcha / login)' implies the triggering condition, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to or away from the many related siblings (grokbot_desktop, grokbot_interrupt, grokbot_resolve_widget).

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