workload_handoff_put

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description states it 'Keeps statements' and the name is 'put' – both implying a stateful write to be retrieved later. The description contradicts the read-only annotation instead of clarifying side effects, permissions, or the lifetime/expiry of the stored 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the action stated first and the return value second; no wasted words. It is compact to the point of being cryptic, but structurally sound.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain parameter roles and the return contract more fully. It covers the workload/new_name idea and the returned id, but leaves 'database' unexplained and conflicts with annotations, so it is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It usefully distinguishes 'target workload or a new one's name', mapping to the workload/new_name pair, and mentions the statements payload. But it omits the 'database' parameter entirely and gives no format or mutual-exclusivity details.

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 conveys a specific action (keep/store statements) and outcome (returns an id to embed as a 'handoff' link parameter), which is more than a tautology. However, the notion of a 'handoff' is never explained, and the closest sibling (workload_handoff_take) is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer how the pair fits together.

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?

It hints at a context ('Workload page about to open in the browser') but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no when-not, and no comparison to plausible alternatives like workload_save or workload_define. The agent must guess why it would choose this over saving a workload outright.

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