handoff_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's behavior regarding format selection and template usage, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether saves are permanent, if they overwrite existing handoffs, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds useful context about format trade-offs but leaves other aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections. The purpose is stated upfront, followed by format guidance and template details. While comprehensive, some template details could be considered overly verbose for a tool description, though they're relevant to usage.

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 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, format options, and usage guidelines thoroughly. However, it doesn't describe what happens after saving (e.g., confirmation message, error conditions) or how saved handoffs integrate with sibling tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the rationale behind format choices ('Much faster — reduces output tokens to ~5-20%'), provides detailed template guidance for structured format, and clarifies when to use verbatim format. This adds significant value over the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Save a conversation handoff for later retrieval' with the specific goal of 'pass[ing] conversation context to another AI or project.' It distinguishes from siblings like handoff_load (retrieval) and handoff_clear (deletion) by focusing on saving/persisting data.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each format option: 'structured' is 'default' and 'Best for most handoffs,' while 'verbatim' should be used 'only when exact wording matters (e.g., legal text, precise error messages).' It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on saving rather than loading, clearing, or listing.

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