Create a handoff task with a title and agent, then assign it, mark it urgent, or require human/agent approval before work starts. This coordinates handoffs and controls when tasks can proceed.
Create a handoff task. Optionally assign it, mark urgent, or gate it behind human/agent approval (needsApproval).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| agent | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| blockedBy | No | ||
| needsApproval | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation and that tasks can be optionally assigned, marked urgent, or gated behind approval, but it omits permissions, side effects, notification behavior, and what happens when needsApproval is true.
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 front-loaded, uses one efficient sentence, and includes no wasted wording. The parenthetical mapping to needsApproval is compact and useful.
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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It covers the core purpose and some optional behaviors but leaves required parameters, dependencies, and return behavior unspecified.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for assignee, priority, and needsApproval, but leaves the required agent and title fields, plus body and blockedBy, unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a handoff task." This is clearer than a tautology and distinguishes creation from sibling task actions like claim, complete, and cancel. It does not explicitly contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by "Create a handoff task," and the optional assignment, urgency, and approval gate are mentioned. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus adjacent tools such as bus_approve_task, bus_claim_task, or bus_list_tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.