handoff_create

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds that the record is durable and keeps every field, and that the response reports packet size against the token budget and explicit omissions. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 focused sentences; the primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds behavioral detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 9 required, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is too thin. It does not define what counts as an 'exact native session,' how destinationSession interacts with sourceSession, how token budget is determined, or what counts as an explicit omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description needed to explain at least the key fields, but it only mentions 'exact native sessions' and 'every field.' It lets agents infer meanings from names like workId and acceptanceCriteria, but does not add parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Create a structured work handoff between exact native sessions.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and resource and makes it distinct from generic work_create, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling handoff_packet.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives such as handoff_packet are mentioned. The phrase 'between exact native sessions' implies a target context, but the description never tells an agent when to choose this tool over its siblings or what prerequisites must be met.

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