handoff_write_v4

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description properly discloses the mutation effects: writes two files and flips status to complete. However, it doesn't address idempotency, what happens if the dispatch is already closed, or error surface. destructiveHint=false combined with a tool that flips status could mislead — the description partially corrects this but doesn't fully resolve side-effect 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?

Two tight sentences carrying real information: what the tool does, which files each parameter feeds, the state transition, and the downstream contract. No filler words.

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?

No output schema exists alerting an agent to the return shapehare — the description doesn't mention what happens on success/failure, idempotency for an already-completed dispatch, or how the tool reports failure of the verify checks. For a state-changing tool these are notable gaps. But it does frame the lifecycle well by naming verify_handoff and agent_clear.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains what goes into findings (handoff.json), narrative (closeout.md), and clarifies the checklist_resolved and envelope_clean booleans as agent declarations. dispatch_id is implied by context; app_id is not explicitly tied. Good coverage of 4 of 6 params, but the identity params are only implicit.

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?

Opens with a precise, specific statement: 'Close out a dispatch you accepted: writes handoff.json...flips its status to complete.' The verb, resource, and effect are unambiguous in the first sentence.

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?

Explains the workflow contract — that this finishes a dispatch and that verify_handoff will check the two state flags before the orchestrator releases the agent. Doesn't state explicit preconditions (e.g., what must exist before calling, whether a dispatch can be re-closed), but the acceptance phrasing covers the main trigger.

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