it_ops_domain_artifact_handoff

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It does add context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful authentication/authorization context. However, it does not disclose any destructive or side-effect implications of the action.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the action invocation, followed by routing context and parameter definitions. It is not padded, though the opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name.

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 tool marked destructive and open-world, the description omits any indication of what side effects may occur, when this action is appropriate, or what 'artifact handoff' concretely does. The output schema is present, so return-value detail is not required, but the operational semantics are too thin for an agent to select and invoke this confidently.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it remains somewhat generic.

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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `domain_artifact_handoff`', which largely restates the tool name and gives no independent explanation of what 'artifact handoff' accomplishes. The second sentence describes routing mechanics through a dispatcher, not the domain purpose, so an agent cannot infer what this action is for.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite a huge sibling set including generic dispatch tools like `dispatch_domain_agent` and other domain actions. The description only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is mechanism, not usage context.

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