memo_handoff_consume

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavior details: idempotent, returns {'consumed': false} for unknown/already consumed, and true only on first consume. This enriches the behavioral model beyond annotations. Score 4 because it does not cover all possible side effects (e.g., what happens to other agents seeing the handoff).

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one paragraph for behavioral details. Every sentence is informative and necessary. No redundant or vague language.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be fully detailed), and the behavioral explanation, the description covers all necessary aspects for correct usage. It is complete and self-contained.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('mark a handoff consumed'), the resource ('handoff'), and the purpose ('stops surfacing to later agents'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool memo_handoff_create, which creates handoffs.

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 usage context (consuming handoffs to stop surfacing) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor provide any alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance on when-not or comparison to siblings.

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