authorize_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that the MCP signs the authorization and pays a separate deploy fee, that the budget is frozen on an escrow, that the operation is idempotent once frozen, and that unsupported configs return 409. Minor gap: it does not describe the response shape or what happens if the task is already frozen (beyond idempotency).

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it front-loads the core action and then packs in rail restrictions, fee percentages, execution modes, error conditions, and idempotency in three sentences. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity and no output schema, the description covers the flow position, both invocation modes, fee details, a specific error case, and idempotency. It is missing a description of what the function returns and any state prerequisites beyond being the second step, but it is still remarkably complete for a tool of this depth.

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 description adds essential relational semantics not present in the schema: it specifies that auth_intent and deploy_fee must be passed together for MCP auto-signing, and that signed_payment with fee_tx_hash is the alternative. This transforms the schema's flat property list into actionable call patterns, going far beyond the 80% 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Freeze the bounty budget on-chain') and explicitly identifies the tool as the second step of the FCFS flow. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like post_task (creation) and review_submission (reviewing), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit flow context: it is the second step after post_task and before review_submission. It also states the only supported rail (non-custodial POOL escrow) and the 409 error condition for unsupported configs, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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