veto_handoff

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it saves session state and returns instructions. It does not contradict annotations. Could benefit from mentioning any persistent side effects beyond saving, but current disclosure is good.

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 concise (two sentences plus a TRIGGER note) with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured for quick understanding. Every sentence serves a clear role.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the result (step-by-step instructions). It lacks details on the output format exactly, but that is partially mitigated by stating instructions are returned. The context is sufficient for an agent to use 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning, e.g., explaining that to_platform, if omitted, lets Veto pick the platform with most headroom. This is helpful but does not significantly extend the schema's information, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 saves the current session and returns step-by-step instructions for continuing on another AI platform (Gemini or Codex). It distinguishes itself from siblings like veto_continue by specifying that the receiving platform calls that tool to restore context, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: triggers when user types 'veto_handoff' or asks to hand off/save-and-switch, or when Claude is approaching its rate limit. Also instructs not to write node scripts or manually touch the database. This differentiates when to use this tool versus other approaches.

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