Invoke — give your AI agent the ability to hire humans with post_task

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: first task posts immediately with a waived fee, while later tasks return pending_payment with checkout_url/payment_url. This is critical operational information not present in annotations (readOnly false, openWorld true, idempotent false, destructive false).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Alias for post_task: hire a human') and then covers the key behavioral nuance (fee waiver and payment flow). Zero wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (an alias) and the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description captures the essential behavioral differences (first vs. later tasks) without unnecessary detail. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'hire a human through Invoke', identifying it as an alias for post_task. This distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly referencing post_task and explaining its specific scope (hiring a human).

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 on when the tool is used (hiring a human) and explains the behavioral difference between first and subsequent tasks. However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool post_human_task or state when not to use this alias.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the first task posts immediately with a waived fee, while later tasks return a pending task ID and checkout URL for activation. This discloses a fee structure and a two-phase behavior that is not evident from readOnlyHint or openWorldHint. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the alias relationship, the fee waiver condition, and the differing behavior for later tasks. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is highly efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations that cover safety and side-effect profiles, the description leverages them well. It explains the crucial exception (first-task immediate posting vs. subsequent pending activations) that is not inferable from schema or annotations. It slightly omits what 'activation' entails or how to use the checkout URL, but such details are likely captured in the output schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already covers all five parameters with descriptive text (100% schema description coverage). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the general notion that the task will be posted or deferred. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: posting a human task, and identifies it as an alias for post_task. It also explains the key behavioral distinction (immediate posting with waived fee on first task vs. pending with checkout URL for later tasks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hire_human, so it loses one point for incomplete sibling differentiation.

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 some context about when the tool behaves differently (first vs. later tasks) but stops short of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The alias statement implies interchangeability with post_task, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what hire_human would be preferred for. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effects and response differences: first post is published immediately with status=open and fee_waived=true, while later posts return pending_payment and checkout_url. This is valuable behavioral context that schema and annotations do not provide.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and delivers actionable behavioral details in the second sentence, making it an ideal length.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations are provided, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances (first vs. later posts) and the key result fields (task_url, checkout_url). It is complete for a create-style tool, though it could mention nothing more without becoming verbose.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely lists the parameter names without adding semantic detail, but it does clarify that category is optional. This meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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's function: 'create an Invoke human task' with a specific list of inputs. The phrase 'One-call posting path' distinguishes it from alternative multi-call flows or sibling tools.

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?

It explains the behavioral difference between first and subsequent posts, which implies when this tool is appropriate (first-time posting yields immediate publication; later posts require payment). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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