moa_handoff_consume

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: terminal state, consumedAt recording, legal transitions with error behavior, and non-participation in recall/indexing. It doesn't address reversibility explicitly, but 'terminal' strongly implies irreversibility.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main action and followed by necessary constraints. Every clause contributes.

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, it provides essential context: target state, valid transitions, error conditions, and indexing exclusion. It doesn't describe return values, but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

All parameters are already documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter-level detail. Per baseline, schema covers the semantics; no compensation needed.

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 the action clearly: 'Mark a pending handoff consumed' with specific effects (terminal state, records consumedAt). Also distinguishes from sibling handoff tools by specifying legal state transitions and the no recall/indexing behavior.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use constraints: only pending handoffs can be consumed, and 'anything else errors'. However, it doesn't name sibling tools like moa_handoff_archive as explicit alternatives, so slightly short of perfect guidance.

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