handoffs.partnership

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent, which the description's 'Creates' aligns with. The description adds authentication requirements ('Auth: Bearer <token>') beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose post-creation behavior or side effects.

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: first concisely states purpose and scope, second adds essential auth context. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description covers purpose and auth but omits return format, error handling, or what happens after handoff creation. Adequate but could be more complete given parameter complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema's descriptions; it only provides top-level context like categories and auth.

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 verb 'Creates' and resource 'partnerships handoff' with specific categories (design partner, ecosystem, training, advisory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like handoffs.agency by focusing on partnership conversations. The auth note adds clarity.

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 specifies the tool is for conversations 'needing human review' and lists partnership categories. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative sibling tools like handoffs.agency or handoffs.operator.

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