Route a handoff to specialist agents

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that the tool only adds metadata and does not trigger agents or modify files, which is beyond what annotations convey. It aligns with annotations and provides extra side-effect clarity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it states the positive action, the scope ('only'), and the negative exclusions.

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's relative simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description covers safety and side-effect context adequately. However, with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the lack of parameter explanations leaves a notable gap, making the description only marginally sufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter (project, handoff_id, routed_by, targets, rationale). The phrase 'librarian routing metadata' gives a vague hint but does not clarify what each field means or how they relate, so the description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('librarian routing metadata'), and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not spawn agents or edit files'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_handoff or mark_applied, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'only' and 'does not spawn agents or edit files', implying that if such actions are needed, another tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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