handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that each handoff supersedes the previous one, that the handoffId can be walked via why for auditing, and that clear=true retires the active handoff. This gives the agent awareness of mutation and chain behavior, though it does not fully describe the return value or error cases.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The main action and payload are front-loaded, followed by chain behavior and clear mode. The phrase 'why on the returned handoffId walks it' is slightly jargon-heavy but still efficient and informative.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers when to use it, what payload to pass, how clearing works, and what happens to the next session. It lacks an explicit example and full return contract, but those are not essential for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'summary, open questions, and next steps' maps to the three content parameters, and 'Pass clear=true' explains the boolean. Constraint details like maxLength and maxItems remain in the schema, which is acceptable.

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 verb and resource: 'Record where this session stopped' with a concrete payload (summary, open questions, next steps). This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like remember/recall by focusing on session handoff and supersession rather than general memory storage/retrieval.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'before ending or compacting' a session. It also explains the alternative clear mode: 'Pass clear=true to retire the active handoff instead.' It does not name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the usage context is clear enough.

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