handoff_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions the return value (handoff id), omitting side effects, persistence/visibility, permissions, error behavior, or limits for this write operation.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and target agent concept. No wasted words, though the return-value sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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?

Full schema coverage and an output schema mean parameters and return values are covered elsewhere. For a write tool with no annotations, however, the description leaves gaps around behavioral side effects and sibling routing, making it only minimally complete.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description repeats the 'to' semantics ('agent label ... * for any agent') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Leave a task') and resource ('handoff') with the target agent concept, so the action is clear. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like handoff_take or handoff_done only implicitly, without naming alternatives.

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 usage for delegating work to another agent by label, which is helpful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus handoff_take, handoff_list, or handoff_done, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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