Hand Off Specification

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly discloses the irreversible nature ('IRREVERSIBLE', 'cannot be modified'), the copy action, resource availability, and audit record creation. This goes beyond a simple verb+object and provides critical behavioral expectations.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important caveats. No word is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema and only one parameter, the description provides a complete picture: the trigger (approved spec), the actions (copy, resource, audit), and the constraint (irreversibility). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with its own description. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what is in the schema, such as validation rules or format, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 purpose: 'Release an approved specification to the implementation team.' It goes beyond the title by detailing the actions (copies to handoff directory, makes available as MCP Resource, creates audit record) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like review or submit by indicating this is the final handoff step.

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 provides clear context: it must be used for an 'approved specification,' implying it follows the review step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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