sassy_memory_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool writes state to both memory and crosslink, which is a helpful mutation disclosure. However, it does not explain whether a previous handoff is overwritten or merged, whether any permissions are needed, or what the response contains, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives the continuation flow in one line, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the handoff contains, how fields are formatted, and how the next session will consume it. It lacks a concrete example and does not discuss overwrite behavior, but the provided info is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most session-handoff scenarios.

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 fully compensate. It does exactly that: every one of the 8 parameters is explained with clear semantics, including the allowed values for status ('in-progress | blocked | needs-review | paused | completed') and the expected comma-separated format for list fields. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Write a session handoff — saves state to BOTH memory and crosslink.' It also distinguishes itself from related memory tools by explaining that the next session calls sassy_memory_context and sassy_crosslink_recv to resume work, which clearly differentiates its role from siblings like sassy_memory_remember or sassy_memory_log.

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 when to use the tool: at the end of a session to hand off context to the next session, and it names the exact retrieval tools for the next session. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use case is clearly scoped as a session handoff, which is enough to guide selection.

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