Neurons Handoff

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the description is not on the hook for the safety profile. It does add one genuinely useful behavior — `to` notifies a running agent — but it says nothing about where the handoff lands, whether it persists or is overwritten, what happens with an absent/invalid `to`, or what is returned after publishing.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the core action leads, the field inventory follows, and the `to` side-effect is placed last. It earns its brevity, though the compression contributes to gaps 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?

A 12-parameter write tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain destination, persistence, notification behavior, and every parameter. This description omits the sole required parameter (title), two other fields, and all behavioral detail about what publishing actually does beyond notification.

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 the parameter burden across 12 parameters. It lists goal, done, decisions, next_steps, open_questions, gotchas, files, commits and `to`, but omits the required `title` entirely, plus `repo` and `summary`, and gives no format guidance (e.g. commit hash vs message, path expectations for files) beyond 'decisions (with reasons)'.

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 clear verb phrase, 'Hand work over', and enumerates the handoff payload, so an agent can tell this is a write/publish tool that produces a handoff record. It never names the sibling handoff_get or explains the publish-vs-retrieve split explicitly, so differentiation is only implied.

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?

Publishing a handoff at the end of a work segment is implied by 'Hand work over' and by the `to` notification clause, which hints at coordinating with a running agent. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to send, memory_save, or reply, so the agent must infer the routing.

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