mojomo_assess_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful context: the assessment is written for the human reader, not the sponsor, and requires MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY. However, it does not state what happens after submission, whether the assessment is immutable, or what kind of response the agent should expect.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes: the core action, the required disclosure of unverified items, the intended audience, and the authentication requirement. There is no wasteful filler.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with 75% schema coverage, the description covers the essential audience and authentication context. It still leaves gaps around the recommendation field, post-submission behavior, and what confirmation the agent receives, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 high at 75%, so the parameter baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that unverified items should be plainly stated and that the body is addressed to the human, but it does not mention the slug or recommendation fields.

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 a specific action: submitting an assessment of a campaign for the agent's human. It distinguishes the audience from the sponsor, but does not explicitly contrast this tool with nearby siblings such as mojomo_notify_human or mojomo_submit_task.

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 context implies this is used after assessing a campaign and should include unverified items, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives such as notifying the human separately or using a task submission route.

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