handoff_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that the handoff lands as a note in the desk folder, gets pushed to a shared repo on git sync, is emailed when a doorbell is configured, that the agent replies inside the note, and what to do when ring.rung is false. It also warns against including secrets. It stops short of stating idempotency or what the call returns.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action, then mechanics, then usage rules, then a security warning. Every clause carries information, though the mechanics and policy sentences are packed tightly enough to be a slightly heavy read.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and results. It explains the delivery path and usage well but leaves 'replyBy' unexplained and doesn't say what the caller gets back (note id, confirmation, or nothing), leaving a real gap for an outbound side-effecting tool.

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 only 25% – only 'request' is documented in the schema. The description never explains 'replyBy', 'title', or how the 'type' enum values map to the described use cases (errand/question/status), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Hand a task to the user's personal agent') and describes the delivery mechanism (desk-folder note, git sync, email via doorbell). It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation from handoff_inbox_reply or handoff_status relies on the reader inferring it.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it ('errands outside the computer, questions while the user is away, and status lines') and when not to ('never for building or code work'). It also gives a fallback path when ring.rung is false, but doesn't contrast with any named sibling tool.

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