write_handoff

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description doesn't contradict these. It adds 'structured, evidence-backed' as a quality expectation, but it does not disclose side effects like whether the handoff is appended, overwrites prior handoffs, or requires specific permissions. Given the presence of basic annotations, the description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action immediately ('Write...'). Every word contributes value, avoiding fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple statement of purpose, though it sacrifices necessary detail elsewhere.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters (7 required) and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about expected inputs, return values, or post-conditions. It is too terse for the complexity involved, leaving an agent uninformed about how to construct a valid handoff or what to expect as a result. The description is far from complete for such a structured 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 compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The description only says 'structured, evidence-backed' without referencing specific fields like summary, decisions, changes, or verification. It provides no hints about parameter usage or naming conventions beyond what the schema already exposes through names and types.

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 clearly states the tool's function: writing a structured, evidence-backed handoff for another agent. It uses a specific verb ('write') and resource ('handoff'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on reading context, searching, or status. No ambiguity exists about its core purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Without mentioning sibling tools or specific scenarios, an agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and generic description. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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