cockpit_land_the_plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and falls short. It does not say whether the note is appended or overwrites a prior handover, whether it requires prior session state or auth, whether the call is idempotent, or whether it actually ends the session. For a state-persisting session-boundary operation, those are material omissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence, with the protocol label first and the operational gloss second. No filler, though the parenthetical nickname consumes space without adding invocation value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one-line purpose is coherent with the sibling set. However, with zero annotation coverage and undocumented required parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about persistence semantics and field content, which is thin for a session-closing write.

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% for two required parameters, and the description adds no meaning beyond the generic term 'handover note'. Nothing explains expected format, length, or what 'author' should contain (user id, agent name, free text).

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?

States a specific verb (saves) and resource (handover note) and frames it as a session-ending handover step, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like cockpit_add_task or cockpit_create_adr. The metaphor-heavy name is redeemed by the plain-language gloss, though the description never says whether saving also terminates the session.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: call it before concluding an agent session. That is clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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