session_handoff_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a write action ('Close'), the markdown closeout structure, and the distinction from dispatched work. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, whether the session is mutated, or what the return value is—leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a write tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, using inline code for field names. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool writes; the second provides the sibling contrast. No filler or repetition.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, field semantics, and the key sibling distinction, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could be improved by addressing return values and session mutation side effects, but the current description is largely sufficient.

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 adds semantics for the content parameters: narrative ('what happened'), summary, structured findings, and next_bite ('suggested next step'). It does not elaborate on app_id, workspace, or project, but their schema titles are self-explanatory and 'project-scoped' hints at the project parameter, giving better-than-baseline coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and identifies the resource ('human-entry session') plus the output ('project-scoped markdown closeout') and the exact fields written. It also distinguishes from the sibling handoff_write_v4 by contrasting the human-path versus dispatched-work use case, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for human-entry sessions requiring only a session, versus handoff_write_v4 for dispatched work requiring a dispatch_id. This gives clear selection criteria and a named alternative, so the agent knows which sibling to pick.

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