Mark a handoff integrated into a repository

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it clarifies that the tool does not write repository files and that the provenance recorded is immutable. These are not fully captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb 'Record' and contains no filler words. Every word adds value: 'immutable', 'provenance', 'after real integration', and 'does not write repository files'.

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?

Given the tool has 6 required parameters, all unexplained, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly. The annotations add some context, but the description lacks parameter guidance and clear workflow positioning, making it insufficiently 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?

The input schema has 6 required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no explanation or hints about the meaning of parameters like project, handoff_id, applied_by, repository, commit_ref, or paths. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Record immutable provenance') on a specific resource, and the title adds 'Mark a handoff integrated into a repository'. It distinguishes from siblings by its focus on provenance recording, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'after real integration' provides a usage context, and 'does not write repository files' clarifies a non-goal. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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