save_handoff_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at behavioral traits ('continuation-biased', 'state-machine DAG model') but does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or error conditions.

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 very short (one sentence, 14 words). While concise, it packs jargon without explanation, making it less useful. It could be clearer without sacrificing brevity.

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, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, parameter structure, or when to use the tool. A well-rounded description would need several sentences.

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 provides no information about any of the 9 parameters (4 required). The agent receives no guidance on what 'obligations', 'work_state', 'evidence', or 'invalidation' mean or how to structure them.

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 states the verb 'Save' and resource 'handoff receipt', indicating a write operation. However, terms like 'continuation-biased' and 'state-machine DAG model' are jargon that reduce clarity. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_handoff_status'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned.

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