write_handoff

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

The description discloses that handoffs are isolated to the current session's lane, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not specify side effects like overwriting an existing handoff, persistence semantics, or any constraints on the data, and there are no annotations to fill that gap.

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 concise sentences that are well-structured and front-loaded with the action. No redundant information.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and isolation, it lacks details on parameter usage, whether handoffs are overwritten or appended, and how to retrieve them later. The sibling recall_handoff is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the full workflow.

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?

The description provides no explanation of the goal, state, decisions, and nextAction fields. Schema has no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the agent must rely on parameter names alone. The description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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: saving a handoff for the current session's lane so a future session can resume. It uses a specific verb (Save) and resource (handoff), and distinguishes from the sibling recall_handoff by focusing on the write action.

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?

It explains the context for use (saving session state for future resumption) and notes lane isolation, which implies it should not be used for cross-session shared state. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend the alternative recall_handoff for reading.

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