solver_start_source_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool never accepts or returns raw secrets, requires a human browser step, and returns a continue_url. It could add more detail about side effects or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences, each adding essential information: what the tool does, its secret-safety boundary, and the follow-up workflow. No filler words or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it names the return value (continue_url), the required polling step, the terminal state (completed), and the next tool to call. An agent has enough context to invoke this correctly and proceed through the workflow.

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, but it does not explain the two parameters. 'For a source' hints at source_id, and auth_scheme's enum values are self-describing, but the description does not clarify how source_id is obtained or how auth_scheme affects the handoff. This is a notable gap.

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 action ('Start a hosted browser credential handoff'), the resource ('for a source'), and the exact endpoint (POST /v1/source-credential-handoffs). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like solver_poll_source_handoff and solver_create_source_connection.

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 explicit workflow guidance: poll with solver_poll_source_handoff until state=completed, then pass handoff_intent_id to solver_create_source_connection. It also clarifies the human-in-the-loop browser requirement, so an agent knows this is not a direct API call that completes autonomously.

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