sage_message_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals atomicity, compare-and-swap semantics ('expected from_session_id is a compare-and-swap fence'), failure behavior ('fails visibly instead of duplicating ownership'), and legacy handling ('never stolen automatically'). This is substantial non-obvious context.

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 three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Each sentence serves a distinct role: core action, concurrency semantics, and legacy caveat. No redundant wording.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the core behavior, concurrency edge cases, and legacy requirements, which is impressive given the absence of annotations and output schema. However, it does not clarify success return values or explicit failure response formats, and it subtly assumes the agent can find message_id via sage_message_history. These are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful detail for from_session_id by explaining its compare-and-swap role and referencing sage_message_history as the source. However, message_id is only implied as the message to transfer; there is no guidance on how to locate or format it. Partial compensation only.

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's purpose: 'Atomically transfer one claimed local or inbound federated message from the claimant_session_id shown by sage_message_history to this MCP session.' This is a specific verb+resource+destination and is distinct from sibling tools like send/reply/status, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when a message is claimed by another session and needs to be transferred to this session. It also notes a specific requirement for legacy federated claims: 'still require this explicit handoff.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, preventing a 5.

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