handoff_done

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates what the schema already says ('id of the handoff you took', optional note). It does not disclose whether the state change is reversible, whether it requires ownership/permission, whether it is idempotent, or what effect it has on handoff_list results. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and the optional input with no wasted words. Nothing is buried and nothing is redundant.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and both parameters are covered. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool the description omits prerequisites (must have been taken), failure modes, and post-completion effects, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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% and both parameters ('id', 'note' with its 4 KiB limit) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('mark a handoff ... as done') and scopes it to 'a handoff you took', which cleanly separates it from handoff_take, handoff_create, and handoff_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

'a handoff you took' implies the precondition that handoff_take must have run first, and 'with an optional note on what you did' clarifies the typical follow-up action. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative of leaving a handoff open, and no statement of what happens if the handoff was never taken.

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