wwa_handoff_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the structured nature, data integrity guarantees, and protocol compliance (Works With Agents Handoff Protocol v1.0.0-draft). It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the described behavior is more informative than typical create tools.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every clause adds value—no filler. It is efficient and well-structured for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Given the rich schema (10 params, all described) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the protocol and guarantees. It could more clearly differentiate from sibling verification/validation tools, but the combination of schema coverage and description provides adequate context for selection and invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with all parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the overall theme of context transfer aligns with the context parameter. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource 'structured agent-to-agent task handoff'. It explains the purpose: transferring an in-progress task to another agent with complete context. This distinguishes it from sibling verification/validation tools like wwa_handoff_verify and wwa_handoff_validate_schema.

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 states when to use the tool: 'When one agent must transfer an in-progress task to another'. It also highlights key guarantees (no data loss, no silent drops, full attribution chain). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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