Create conversation handoff

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context: the link is expiring, use-limited, and can redact secrets before leaving. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not cover side effects or failure modes.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Mints an expiring, use-limited bearer link'), and the optional redaction detail is concise. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a link string or object), nor does it detail the parameters. It omits crucial details like how the link is used for redemption, required auth, or consequences of reaching maxUses or TTL. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 for parameter meanings. It does not. It only hints at redaction (redact parameter) but fails to explain conversationId, note, maxUses, ttlMinutes, or audience. The schema itself lacks per-property descriptions, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a handoff link (bearer link) that is expiring and use-limited, and explicitly mentions redaction. It distinguishes itself from siblings like redeem_handoff, revoke_handoff, and continue_handoff by focusing on creation.

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 implies the primary use case (creating a portable context link for another party) and mentions an optional redaction feature. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. Context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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