close_research_handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says to stop the handoff and preserve all evidence, which hints at a mutation that keeps evidence, but it does not state permissions required, reversibility, whether repeated calls are safe, side effects on other launchers, or what 'relay eligibility' means operationally.

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 wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to ambiguity rather than being a structural fault.

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?

This is a mutation-style lifecycle tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, so the description should compensate heavily. Instead it gives only one behavioral hint ('preserve all evidence') and leaves critical context about scope, permissions, side effects, and parameters undocumented.

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 does not mention either parameter. The required 'id' and optional 'sender' are left completely unexplained, so an agent has no semantic guidance on what values to supply beyond their names.

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 ('Stop') and names a resource ('temporary handoff and relay eligibility'), but the jargon is not self-explanatory. It implies an opposite action to the sibling register_research_handoff, yet it never explicitly distinguishes itself from that or other siblings. An agent can guess the general intent but may not confidently know what operation is being performed.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives. It only implies that it should be called to stop a specific launcher's handoff, but an agent cannot tell whether to use this versus acknowledge, decision_status, or other lifecycle tools.

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