handoff_start

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns immediately, runs as a background job, has a default 30-minute timeout, and returns a job id. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and covers the main async behavior well. However, it does not mention error handling or failure scenarios, which would enhance transparency.

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, well-structured paragraph of four sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return details. Every sentence is informative and without fluff, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks detailed parameter documentation for the 6 parameters. Given zero schema descriptions and high parameter count, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not reference sibling tools like handoff_backends for additional context, leaving gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 6 parameters. It only states 'Args mirror handoff' without explaining any parameter specifics (e.g., what 'approve' does, valid 'backend' values). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving the agent without necessary guidance on parameter meaning.

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 'Start a handoff as a background job and return a job id immediately,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like handoff (presumably synchronous) and handoff_status (polling). The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 explicitly advises using this tool for long or agentic handoffs and directs to poll handoff_status for progress. It contrasts the async path with a synchronous alternative ('instead of blocking on one long call'), providing clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative.

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