handoff_acted_on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Appends to handoffs/acted_on.jsonl' which indicates a write operation, but lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or permission requirements. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences with no filler. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the core function, closing the loop, and distinguishing from a sibling. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, distinction, and append behavior. Could optionally explain what a handoff is, but not necessary.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are self-explanatory. The parameter names and schema descriptions are clear enough.

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 states 'Record what was actually done with a handoff' and distinguishes itself from 'mark_consumed (binary read-once)', providing a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation from a sibling tool.

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 contrasts with 'mark_consumed' by noting it is 'binary read-once', giving guidance on when to use this tool instead. However, it does not address other siblings like 'handoff_acted_on_records'.

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