complete_handoff

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

Annotations already declare the important traits (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by explaining that commit_hash enables a later `mark_merged` transition, but it says nothing about repeat-call behavior, permissions, or whether a completion can be undone — notable gaps given idempotentHint=false.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the optional-parameter consequence. Slight redundancy with the schema's commit_hash wording costs it the top mark but nothing is padded.

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 simple state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the optional parameter's downstream purpose, and names the follow-up tool. Missing only edge-case behavior (already-completed handoffs, failure modes), which would round it out.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'commit_hash records the work ref (typically a git SHA)' essentially restates the schema text rather than adding new syntax, format, or validation detail.

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+resource ('Mark a handoff as completed') and names the related sibling 'mark_merged' that later flips the same handoff to merged, so the agent can place it in the lifecycle. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the closer cousin 'accept_handoff', which is a plausible alternative an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear context for invoking it and explicitly routes the later stage of the workflow to `mark_merged`, which is useful condition-based guidance. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or guidance against calling this on an already-completed handoff.

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