post_agent_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the operation appends rather than overwrites, and targets a fixed path (workspace/HANDOFFS.md), so existing entries survive. It says nothing about whether the file is created if absent, ordering, permissions, or what the call returns.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and target file before the rationale. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 four-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage needs more than one sentence. An agent still cannot tell what 'project' scopes, what author defaults mean, or how the handoff is formatted for the counterpart agent to parse.

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% and the description explains none of the four parameters — author, project, and their defaults are invisible, and 'title' vs 'message' semantics are left entirely to the schema's bare types. Only 'structured handoff message' loosely gestures at the message field.

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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (a structured handoff message in workspace/HANDOFFS.md), and explains the intent: inter-agent communication between the external coding agent and Forge. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling write_workspace_doc, which is the nearest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to use it (leaving a note for the other agent), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of write_workspace_doc as the general-purpose alternative. The agent must infer the split between this and the generic workspace writer.

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