tb_handoff

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

No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true align with 'Create'). The description adds meaningful context with 'reference-only attenuated' and the exact-negotiation requirement, which goes beyond what annotations convey. However, it does not disclose what the handoff actually does once created, what side effects occur, or what 'attenuated' concretely restricts.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized and the key qualifier ('reference-only attenuated') appears early. Minor deduction for under-specification of content relative to the tool's complexity, though the prose itself is lean.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool: 9 required params, deeply nested objects (capability, resource, refs), an exact API-version negotiation requirement, no output schema, and only minimal annotations. The description offers almost nothing to bridge these gaps — it never explains what 'negotiation' entails, how operations interact with capability, or what a successful handoff returns.

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% and the description provides zero parameter-level information across 9 required parameters, including complex nested structures (resource, capability, refs). Since even high-end cases get a baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, and here the schema carries no descriptions, the description was obligated to compensate and entirely failed to.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a ... handoff') with qualifiers ('reference-only attenuated') that hint at the tool's distinct scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from semantically related siblings like tb_grant, tb_claim, or tb_approve, which also involve delegation-style operations.

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 states a hard prerequisite ('Requires exact task-authority@1.0.0 negotiation') which conveys a precondition but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent has little basis to choose this tool over tb_grant or tb_claim based on the text alone.

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