marrow_create_handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the handoff will be tracked through four specific states. However, it omits other behavioral details like persistence, return values, or prerequisites, limiting 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Create.' It is free of filler words and every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It provides only a minimal purpose statement and lacks parameter semantics, usage alternatives, and behavioral details, making it impossible for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema describes 6 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not mention any parameter names (e.g., to_agent_id, task) or add meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter 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 the tool creates a structured cross-agent handoff, using a specific verb (create) and resource (cross-agent handoff). It also mentions the tracked states (pending, stale, blocked, complete), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_handoff and handoff_status.

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 implies when to use the tool—when creating a new cross-agent handoff that Marrow should track. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update_handoff) or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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