write_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the storage location ('Stored under ~/.warp/agent-coordination/handoffs (not in warp.sqlite)'), which is a useful detail, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, return values, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds the storage detail, which is useful. It is concise without being verbose, though the brevity contributes to the lack of information in other dimensions.

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 write tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any explanation of parameter meanings, return behavior, or usage context. An agent would be unable to correctly construct a call without additional prior knowledge or guesses.

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%, meaning the schema offers no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters. The description does not mention any parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which are ambiguous (e.g., to_agent, related_notebook_id). The agent cannot determine what values to provide or what each parameter signifies.

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 verb (write) and the resource (coordination note), and adds the storage location, which helps distinguish it from the read-only siblings like list_handoffs and get_handoff. However, it does not explicitly use the term 'handoff' to align with sibling naming, so it is clear but not perfectly explicit about the relationship.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the read-only siblings. The contrast is only implicit: it writes while the siblings read. There are no mentions of alternatives, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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