handoff_status

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious trait — the status is for the agent to relay, not delivered directly to the user — but says nothing about whether a new status replaces the prior one, where it is stored, 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 front-loaded sentence with two illustrative examples; nothing redundant and no wasted preamble.

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?

For a 2-required-param tool with no annotations, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition should cover the undocumented title field and the relationship to handoff_send/handoff_read. It leaves both unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains "line" (the one-line status, with examples) but never mentions "title" at all, leaving a required 120-char field entirely undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Post a one-line status") with concrete examples that make the intent unmistakable. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling handoff_send, so an agent cannot tell from the description why it would pick this over a generic send.

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 examples ("Finished phase 1", "Blocked on X, need your call") implicitly sketch the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no pointer to handoff_send or the other siblings as alternatives.

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