moa_tower_mission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It reveals major side effects: patches go through the store, workers only patch their own mission, ownership and scope changes are tower-only, scope changes re-run the disjoint check and are logged, a blocker sets status to blocked, and task_done marks the first open task containing that text done. This is far beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear understanding of consequences.

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 a single, fairly long sentence but well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose, clarifies the id argument, and then lists behavioral rules. Every clause adds useful information; there is no padding. It could be split into sentences for readability, but overall it is appropriately sized for a complex tool with 9 parameters.

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?

The description covers the main read vs patch distinction, return value for reads, and key behavioral rules. Since there is no output schema, mentioning that reads return a rendered mission view is helpful. It does not describe error cases or exactly how patches are triggered, but the schema fills in the parameters. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a little extra context (e.g., task_done behavior, scope change side effects), but these are also partly in the schema. It does not significantly improve semantic understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads or patches a mission, addressed by id. It is specific about the resource and action, and distinguishes from the many sibling tools by focusing on mission read/update operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it doesn't fully differentiate from similar mission-related tools like moa_tower_plan or moa_tower_progress.

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 gives clear context: use with an id to view, or with patch parameters to modify. It also explains important constraints like workers only patching their own mission and tower-only ownership/scope changes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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