moa_tower_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses LWW storage under progress/<missionId>, accumulation behavior, the 80KB headroom ceiling, and the ownership restriction. This goes well beyond a generic write tool description and fully explains the tool's operational characteristics.

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 primary purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information (ownership, storage, frequency). No filler or redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, who can use it, how data is stored, size limits, and recommended frequency. It feels complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds contextual color (automatic timestamping/attribution, anchoring to workspace) but does not provide deeper parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema offers, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Post a progress note to a mission') with a specific resource and scope, and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying ownership restrictions (row-11 ownership, mission's owning worker or tower only). This is a precise verb+resource definition.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (posting progress notes) and explicit constraints (ownership restrictions, sparse note frequency under cron discipline B4). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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