Osiris.Handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether a handoff persists, who can complete or collect it, or what happens if a result is collected twice. The one genuinely important behavior (must_know replaces the parent context) lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

One sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted — but it is under-specified rather than concise, and the highest-value information (the three modes and what each returns) is compressed into parentheses rather than front-loaded.

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 9-parameter, three-mode orchestration tool with no annotations, this description is far too thin; an output schema excuses explaining return values, but nothing else is covered. An agent cannot tell from this text how a create/complete/collect cycle is supposed to be sequenced.

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 baseline of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter detail. Note the schema descriptions themselves are mostly one-word glosses ('Outils.', 'Interdits.'), so the effective documentation is thinner than coverage suggests, but the description is not the right place to fix that here.

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 the resource (a delegation contract / handoff) and enumerates three modes (create, complete, collect), which is more than a tautology. But it is one terse French sentence that never states what a 'contrat de delegation' actually is or produces, and it gives no differentiation from siblings like osiris.plan or osiris.checkpoint.

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 parenthetical mode mapping is the only usage signal; there is no statement of when to choose create vs complete vs collect, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools an agent should consider instead. The agent must infer the workflow from the parameter names alone.

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