moltbook_add_moderator

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact, the Owner-only authorization requirement, but is silent on idempotency (re-adding an existing moderator), failure modes, and whether the promotion is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin but not empty.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and appends the critical permission constraint in parentheses. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the authorization gate but omits the mutation-behavior details an agent would want (does it error if already a moderator, what happens on a non-existent agent). Adequate minimum viability, not complete.

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 100% and both parameters are self-explanatory ('submolt', 'agentName'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline rather than a deficiency.

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 and resource ('Add a moderator to a submolt') with a scope qualifier ('Owner only'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling moltbook_remove_moderator or note the inverse relationship, which an agent could confuse.

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 '(Owner only)' qualifier establishes a permission precondition for calling this tool, which is genuine usage context. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. remove_moderator) or what to do if the caller lacks the owner role.

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