marrow_update_handoff

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates an update operation but fails to mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., handoff must exist), constraints on status transitions, or error behaviors. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that leads with the verb and resource. It is concise without wordiness, but its brevity leaves out essential details, so it is not a model of informative conciseness.

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 four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical information unexplained. An agent cannot reliably determine what a checkpoint is, which statuses are valid in a given situation, or what the response will be. The description is insufficient for correct 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%, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. It mentions 'checkpoint/status' but does not define what 'checkpoint' means, how status maps to the listed events, or what 'result_summary' is. The description fails to compensate for the bare schema.

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 ('Update') with a clear resource ('Marrow handoff checkpoint/status') and lists the exact triggering events (accepts, blocks, completes, needs review). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like marrow_create_handoff and marrow_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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when an agent accepts, blocks, completes, or needs review.' This provides clear contextual triggers. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance.

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