Submit a handoff for integrator review in the coordination memory, so completion is accepted only after approval.
Submit a reviewable handoff event; completion is not acceptance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| base_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that submitting a handoff does not mean accepting it, which is a meaningful behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention side effects, review flow consequences, required permissions, or idempotency, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and the key caveat are both included without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool has five required parameters including a nested payload, zero schema parameter coverage, and no annotations. The description gives only a high-level purpose and one caveat, but does not explain the roles, revision semantics, payload expectations, or what 'reviewable' entails in practice. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input contract remains under-specified.
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%, and the description adds no information about any of the five required parameters. In particular, base_revision and payload have no explanation, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.
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?
States a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('reviewable handoff event'), and the caveat that completion is not acceptance distinguishes this from acceptance-related siblings such as accept_event and reject_event. The purpose is immediately clear and non-tautological.
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 phrase 'reviewable handoff event' gives clear context that this tool creates a handoff intended for review, and 'completion is not acceptance' warns against using it as an acceptance action. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or define when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.