moa_tower_spawn

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects: creates sibling worktree, marks mission active, registers PENDING roster entry, phases of execution, and foreground requirement. It explains the two-stage process and what phase 1 vs phase 2 does, offering rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long but each sentence carries necessary detail about the two-stage process, worktree placement, and argument rules. It is structured and front-loaded, though slightly dense with multiple clauses that could be split for readability.

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 complex spawn tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: worktree creation, enrollment, launching, phase restrictions, and argument requirements. It leaves little ambiguity about how the tool behaves and what the caller should expect.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical conditional semantics: worker spawn requires mission_id while reviewer spawn requires review_target, and clarifies that reviewers take a branch instead of a mission. This goes beyond the schema's generic property descriptions.

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 creates a physical git worktree, marks the mission active, registers roster entry, and launches the agent. The verb 'spawn' plus detailed resource outcomes distinguishes it from siblings like moa_tower_boot or moa_tower_register.

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?

Provides explicit argument combos (worker vs reviewer), required parameters for each kind, and explicit warnings like 'never run_in_background=true'. Also tells when to use moa_tower_register to complete enrollment, giving clear procedural guidance.

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