baton_pass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the key side effects: it rewrites HANDOFF.md and merges with existing state, meaning only passed fields are updated. It does not cover auth or return values, but the most important behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 only three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior. 'PASS THE BATON' is memorable but not padding; every sentence adds information. It earns its place without fluff.

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 10-param schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what side effect occurs, and the merge behavior. The required handoffNote is highlighted as CRITICAL in the schema itself. The main gap is not explicitly routing between siblings like baton_log, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 70%, and the description contributes a valuable global semantic: pass only the fields you want to update, others merge from existing state. This helps interpret the append/replace differences already encoded in the schema. However, it does not add detail for under-covered parameters like openQuestions or project, so compensation is partial.

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 a specific action ('PASS THE BATON', 'Record where you're stopping') tied to a concrete resource ('Rewrites HANDOFF.md'). It also explains the merge behavior, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like baton_status, baton_pick_up, or baton_history. This goes well beyond a tautological restatement of the tool name.

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 makes the intended scenario clear: use this when stopping work so the next agent/session can continue seamlessly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach the top score, but the context is unambiguous and actionable.

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