handoff_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ownership restriction and the strict-mode session-credential requirement, which is valuable. However, it omits irreversibility, error behavior, and the side effect that the result is persisted and delivered to the creator inbox (that detail only lives in the schema).

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 dense sentence that front-loads the key state-transition and ownership facts with no wasted words. The terse arrow notation is efficient, though slightly cryptic for an agent parsing on first read.

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 state-mutating handoff tool with an output schema covering returns, the description supplies ownership, transition logic, the verify path, and auth mode. That is nearly sufficient, with only irreversibility/error semantics left unaddressed.

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 schema already documents agent_id, handoff_id, session_id/secret, result, and project_root. The description adds the strict-mode credential hint but otherwise repeats what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('delivery of a CLAIMED handoff') and spells out the resulting state transitions (-> COMPLETED, or -> VERIFYING). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like handoff_verify, handoff_reject, and handoff_cancel.

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?

Explains the branching condition for COMPLETED vs VERIFYING and names handoff_verify as the decider when acceptance_criteria were set, plus the owner-only constraint. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer handoff_cancel or handoff_reject instead, so no full when-not coverage.

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