task_submit

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals a significant behavioral trait: free submissions are allowed up to 5 per task, and paid submissions require explicit user authorization. This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover return values or side effects like payment execution.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add essential usage conditions. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 simple schema (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, file parameter usage, and a critical authorization caveat. It doesn't explain what happens after submission (e.g., return of a submission ID), but for a submission tool with this simplicity, it is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100% for the two parameters, with clear descriptions for task_id and files. The description adds only a minor hint about repeating --file for multiple artifacts, which is already implied by the array type in the schema. Baseline 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 'Submit work to a Taskmarket task,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like task_get, task_create, and task_browse, which are retrieval or creation 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?

The description provides clear context (submitting completed work) and a key usage condition: 'Requires explicit user authorization for any paid submission (after the 5 free submissions per task).' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient to infer when to use this tool versus siblings.

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