dashclaw_handoff_consume

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency and the effect of marking as consumed. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects like whether subsequent calls to dashclaw_handoff_latest will return the same handoff.

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 sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description covers the action and when to use it, but doesn't explain what happens after marking consumed (e.g., impact on dashclaw_handoff_latest). This is a minor gap for completeness.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds valuable context: 'Handoff id (hf_*) from handoff_latest' and 'Optional current session id for provenance', enhancing the schema's meaning.

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 action ('Mark a handoff as consumed') and the resource ('handoff'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dashclaw_handoff_create and dashclaw_handoff_latest.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Call after dashclaw_handoff_latest returns a bundle and you have processed it.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for most cases.

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