moa_handoff_archive

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: content is unchanged, the handoff is hidden from the inbox, only pending handoffs are valid, invalid transitions error, and handoffs are never part of recall/indexing. This provides strong transparency about side effects and constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful behavioral context without wasted words.

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 archive operation, the description covers the essential context: state transition legality, visibility, and indexing behavior. No output schema exists, but the tool's return value is not critical given the clear side-effect description. It could mention what the API response contains, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already detailed (id format, actor meaning, workspace scope). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Archive a pending handoff (terminal state) without changing its content' and notes it becomes 'hidden from the default inbox view afterwards.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like consume or read, which have different effects.

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 gives clear context: it applies to pending handoffs and enforces the legal transition 'pending → consumed | archived,' implying it should not be used for already-consumed or archived handoffs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it lacks full when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance.

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