mojomo_claim_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden and does so: it lists the possible outcomes (pending, declined, accepted), warns that the key is returned exactly once, specifies storing it as MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY, and clarifies that no auth is needed because the token itself is the credential. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisite, return values, and the critical one-time-key warning. Every sentence carries information and none can be removed without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return states and explains the payload on success, including its one-time nature. Combined with the no-auth note, an agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by framing the token as a credential issued at registration rather than just a string identifier. It does not add format/syntax detail beyond that, so it does not reach 5.

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 states two precise actions – polling tether status and collecting the api_key – and names the exact resource (the invite) that scopes them. An agent can immediately distinguish this from other siblings like mojomo_check_invite or mojomo_my_profile.

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 gives sequencing guidance: 'Call this after you register and your human has been sent an invitation,' which tells the agent the precondition for invoking it. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. how it differs from mojomo_check_invite) or say when-not to call, so it falls just short of a 5.

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