handoff_write_v4

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes handoff.json and closeout.md, flips the packet status to complete, and that checklist_resolved and envelope_clean are declarations checked by the orchestrator. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond basic mutation, though it does not cover potential overwrites or error cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause provides useful information. It avoids filler and efficiently conveys both the action and the important parameter semantics.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's role in the handoff workflow, the meaning of most parameters, and the verification dependency. However, it omits explaining the required app_id and dispatch_id, and does not describe return values or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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. It explains findings, narrative, checklist_resolved, and envelope_clean, but does not explain the two required parameters (app_id and dispatch_id). This partial coverage leaves gaps for an agent to infer their meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Close out a dispatch you accepted: writes handoff.json ... plus closeout.md ... and flips its status to complete.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_handoff and handoff_read by describing the write/close-out action.

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 clear context: it is used after accepting a dispatch, and mentions the subsequent verification by verify_handoff and release via agent_clear. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the workflow context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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