handoff_reject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the auth requirement in trust_mode=strict. It does not cover reversibility, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens to the counterparty beyond what the schema's reason field already says.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and state transitions, then the auth caveat. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, state transitions, and auth preconditions adequately. Remaining gaps (reversibility, side effects) are minor given the rich schema and output schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the trust_mode conditional on session_id/session_secret. The description merely restates that auth rule, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 (reject) plus the resource (handoff) and even enumerates the exact state transitions it performs (CLAIMED->REJECTED, OPEN->REJECTED). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like handoff_cancel, handoff_complete, and handoff_verify.

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 state transitions imply when the tool applies, and the second sentence gives an auth precondition for strict mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reject versus cancel/complete a handoff, nor any stated exclusions.

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