mojomo_redeem_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY) and a precondition, but it does not explain what 'record' entails (e.g., whether it creates a log, updates offer status, or has side effects) or what the response looks like since there is no output schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a precondition and an auth note. No wasted words; every sentence contributes useful 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides purpose, precondition, and auth, but omits return values, side effects, and error handling. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent to call it confidently.

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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the high coverage but does not earn above baseline.

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 the action: 'Record that you acted on an offer' and specifies the two triggering events (shared with human or human clicked). It implicitly distinguishes this from the sharing action (mojomo_share), which would come before this recording step, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a clear precondition: 'Call this only after you have actually done so.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., mojomo_share) or state when not to use it.

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