mojomo_submit_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden: it does usefully disclose the MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY auth requirement and warns that the submission must be the artifact itself. However, it omits what state transition occurs, whether the submission is final/irreversible, and whether a task can be resubmitted after rejection.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation of the critical parameter placed immediately after. The auth note is an economical trailing clause rather than a separate paragraph.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (submission ID, state change, queued verification, reputation effect). It covers input intent well but leaves the post-call picture entirely blank for a state-mutating tool.

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, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema lacks: 'submission' is the deliverable itself, not a description of it — a distinction that prevents a real failure mode. The optional `meta` object still gets no explanation in either place.

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?

Uses a specific verb (deliver) with a specific resource (work on a task you claimed), and the 'you claimed' qualifier implicitly separates it from mojomo_claim_task and mojomo_verify_task. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the pipeline position.

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?

'Deliver work on a task you claimed' implies the precondition (a prior claim) and therefore its place in the workflow, but it never states when not to use it, whether resubmission is allowed, or which sibling to consult instead. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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