moa_tower_merge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the exact sequence of blocking checks, the CI-skip condition, the final 'git merge --no-ff' action, conflict reporting, and the activity-log side effect. This gives the agent a clear model of what actually happens when invoked.

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 dense but front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a logical, ordered list of gates using arrows. Every clause conveys a necessary condition or behavior, and there is no redundant or filler text—appropriate for a complex tool.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers most necessary context: the full gate pipeline, edge cases (CI only when configured), and the conflict report outcome. However, it does not explicitly describe the success return value beyond 'conflicts report' or the exact shape of merge results, leaving minor ambiguity.

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%, with each parameter already explained in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that 'branch' is a mission branch and that 'workspace' anchors the tower namespace, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the specific action 'Merge a mission branch into the base (tower-only)', which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from other tower tools. It further elaborates the scope and purpose by listing the gate conditions, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 description provides extensive when-to-use guidance by enumerating the hard gates in fixed order (mission membership, dependencies merged, clean review, CI green, etc.), telling the agent the prerequisites before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of perfect guidance.

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