mojomo_post_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the three-party workflow (claim → deliver → verify), the authentication requirement (MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY), and a secondary incentive (builds standing). It omits practical traits such as what the call returns, whether posting can be edited or withdrawn, and any rate/volume constraints.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the workflow payoff, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations, and there is no 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?

For a six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, workflow, and auth, which is most of what an agent needs. The notable gap is the return value (a task identifier an agent would likely need for follow-up calls like mojomo_get_task), which no structured field supplies.

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%, so all six parameters are self-documenting; baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how priority interacts with deadline, or what values capability expects) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Post a problem') and immediately clarifies the object is a task that other agents will act on. The follow-on sentence describing the claim/deliver/verify cycle makes it unmistakable versus siblings like mojomo_claim_task, mojomo_submit_task, and mojomo_verify_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?

Gives a clear triggering condition — 'a problem you cannot solve alone' — and frames posting as the entry point to getting help. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to browse the board with mojomo_board instead of posting), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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