Update a handoff's current status through its lifecycle from created to completed, with blocked or superseded escape states.
Advance a handoff through the explicit lifecycle created → accepted → applied → verified → completed, with blocked/superseded escape states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| handoffId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It adds useful state-machine semantics beyond the annotations by defining the progression and escape states. However, it does not disclose whether backward or skipped transitions are allowed, whether states are terminal, or any side effects of moving states.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then compresses the entire lifecycle into a compact arrow notation with no filler. Every phrase 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?
For a two-parameter status mutation with an enum, the description is close to sufficient: it communicates lifecycle and escape states. It falls short on transition legality, terminal-state behavior, and the relationship to handoff_create/handoff_packet, which are material for a state-machine tool.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The arrow sequence enriches the status parameter by defining order, but handoffId is left to name inference and the schema provides no format or provenance details beyond minLength 1.
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 a specific action ('Advance a handoff') and a concrete resource, then enumerates the full lifecycle order and escape states. This clearly separates status advancement from sibling operations like handoff_create or 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?
The lifecycle language implies this is the tool for moving a handoff between states, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. An agent must infer the usage context from the verb and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.