taskmarket_prepare_delegation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool only prepares and returns a command and 'does NOT move funds,' which is the key safety trait for an escrow-adjacent tool. It is silent on whether the returned command requires operator confirmation or which permissions are needed, so a small gap remains.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function and output, followed by the usage condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 4-parameter preparation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and side-effect profile. The one real omission is the semantics of the mode parameter, without which an agent cannot confidently pick among the five modes.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters (rewardUsdc, description, durationHours). The description adds little beyond restating 'escrow amount' and omits any explanation of the five-value 'mode' enum (bounty/claim/pitch/benchmark/auction), which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb+resource (turns a unit of work into a ready-to-run TaskMarket create command) and states the outcome (exact CLI command plus escrow amount). It clearly separates itself from the read-only siblings (market_stats, list_open_tasks, get_task, find_delegatable_tasks) by being the only preparation/creation tool.

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 gives an explicit selection condition: 'Use when a request is better handled by a specialized or cheaper external worker than by more inference.' This tells the agent when this tool applies, but it does not name an alternative or state when NOT to delegate (e.g., trivial work), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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