agtask_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a crucial behavioral trait — publishing immediately debits the reward from the agent's account. That is genuinely valuable side-effect disclosure. However, it omits whether the debit is reversible, permission/balance requirements, and what the tool returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical cost caveat. No 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?

For a mutating, financially consequential tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the main hazard but leaves gaps: no permission/balance preconditions, no statement of whether the debit is refundable, and no indication of what is returned on success.

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 already documents all five parameters (title, description, token_amount, verification_type, required_capabilities). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as token units or defaults, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('发布一个新任务' = publish a new task), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like agtask_claim_task or agtask_submit_task beyond the obvious create-vs-act distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., balance requirements). The cost warning implies the effect of use but does not describe the condition under which creating a task is appropriate.

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