moa_tower_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers. It discloses the three-step validation logic, the degradation behavior ('Missing fold data degrades to verified:false (never blocked)'), the failed_count mechanic ('3 consecutive → blocked'), and the exact rebuild of the guard mirror file including its JSON structure. This addresses both failure modes and state changes.

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 dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose and then expanding into validation and guard mirror details. Every sentence adds crucial information (validation steps, failure modes, re-run behavior, required combo). It is longer than typical but the complexity of the tool justifies the length — it is still efficiently packed with no filler.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the exact invocation context (post-spawn), required vs optional parameters, validation logic, error handling, re-run idempotency, and even the structure of the guard mirror file. The agent has enough information to use the tool correctly without additional lookup.

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?

The input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the semantic relationship between parameters — designating name and agent_id as the required combo and labeling the others as optional backfills, while explaining that agent_id is the value returned by the Agent tool. This helps the agent correctly map runtime values to parameters.

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 begins with 'Two-stage spawn completion (tower-only): fills the real engine agent id into the pending roster entry created by moa_tower_spawn' — a specific verb+resource+process that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like moa_tower_spawn. It also outlines the B2 identity cross-validation steps and guard mirror rebuild, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use it: after moa_tower_spawn, with the required combo '{name, agent_id}' — the roster name plus the engine agent id from your Agent tool. It also notes that mission_id/review_target/worktree/branch are optional backfills, and that re-running is allowed, providing clear operational context.

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