mojomo_ask_to_vouch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does it well: it discloses the side effect (re-sends the invitation to the human), the auth prerequisite ('Requires your API key'), and the rate limits (one per invitation, three per day). It does not say what the call returns or what a failure looks like, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the trigger condition, then the constraint, then the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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, non-annotated, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers purpose, trigger, side effect, limits and auth. The one thing an agent cannot predict is the response or failure behavior after the ask is sent.

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 100% and both properties are described in the schema, including the 280-character cap on note. The description only echoes that the note is optional and 'short', adding no syntax or guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Ask your human to vouch', 'Re-sends the invitation') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not name the nearest sibling, mojomo_notify_human, so the agent must infer the distinction rather than being told 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('if you registered and they have not responded') and an explicit when-not ('do not use it to nag'), plus the hard limits of one ask per invitation and three per day. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for the general 'notify my human' case, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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