session_handoff_write

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

The description clearly states this is a write/close operation ('Close a human-entry session'), which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It explains the difference from handoff_write_v4 (which needs a dispatch_id). However, no annotations cover side effects or state changes; the description doesn't mention what happens on close, whether it's idempotent, or what the response contains. Since this is a session-writing tool with three required params, the description adds moderate behavioral value on top of the sparse annotations.

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 a single well-structured paragraph, front-loading the purpose and then enumerating the key fields. No filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, field semantics, and comparison to a sibling, which is remarkably complete given zero schema descriptions and no output schema. What remains unclear is where 'project' and 'workspace' originate (does the system infer them from the session, or must the caller provide them?), and whether 'findings' has a specific expected shape (array of what?). These are contextual gaps, but the tool is still quite usable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must be the sole source of parameter meaning. It does name `narrative`, `summary`, `findings`, and `next_bite` with inline descriptions, and clarifies `app_id`, `session_id`, and `project` via prose. However, it doesn't cover `workspace` or `narrative` format beyond

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 purpose: closing a human-entry session and producing a markdown closeout with narrative, summary, findings, and next_bite. It also clarifies the distinction from the sibling handoff_write_v4, which requires a dispatch_id. This is strong but not perfect — it doesn't explicitly say what a 'human-entry session' is or when to use 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?

The description explains the context of use (human-entry sessions vs. dispatched work) and the required inputs (project-scoped markdown closeout, needs only the session). However, it doesn't specify when this tool should be called in a workflow, what prerequisites exist (e.g., must a session be open?), or what distinguishes an appropriate use from an inappropriate one.

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