moa_tower_teardown

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: dirty worktrees are kept unless force, junctions are unlinked to avoid touching targets, partial teardown sets torn_down:false, tower stays booted, nothing is deleted on partial teardown, and the append-only board JSONL persists as audit trail. This exceeds typical expectations.

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 every clause carries essential edge-case information. It front-loads the primary action ('Tear the tower down') and then details conditional behavior. While dense, it does not waste words, though it could be slightly more condensed.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: what is deleted, what is preserved, partial failure behavior, and side effects. It even explains the 'why' behind the junction handling. This is exceptionally complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics, especially for 'force' (dirty worktrees are kept unless force) and implies the role of 'workspace' as the tower anchor. This enriches the schema's 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 tears down the tower by removing mission worktrees, deleting the guard mirror file, and clearing the live tower namespace. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'tower-only' and detailing the teardown process unique to this operation.

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: it is used to tear down a tower for a fresh boot, and notes that partial teardown requires fixing worktrees and re-running. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it obvious when to use this tool versus other tower management tools.

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