Assign an execution task to a recruit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the task is durable, work is recorded and assigned rather than executed, and a worker must claim and execute it under its own approval policy. However, it stays silent on idempotency semantics implied by the required idempotency_key and on whether the task can be reversed via a sibling like task_cancel.

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 sentences with zero filler: the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the critical execution handoff. This is exemplary economy with no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The description clearly captures the core model but leaves operational gaps: the required idempotency_key is undefined, there is no output schema so return values are undocumented anywhere, and the optional parameters (room_id, task_id, metadata) have no guidance. For a mutation tool with no annotations, an agent still lacks key details needed to invoke it 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 coverage is only 57%, and the required idempotency_key has no description in either the schema or the tool description, so an agent cannot know what value to supply or what guarantee it provides. The description adds only the 'durable' framing, which hints at idempotency but never connects to the parameter; room_id, task_id, and metadata also remain unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (a durable task for a hired recruit), and clarifies that the tool only records and assigns work rather than executing it. This makes the function unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like task_decide and task_cancel, though no alternative is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a hired recruit' implies a prerequisite (the recruit must already be hired) and the Hermes/OpenClaw worker model implies deferred execution, giving the agent a sense of when this applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no contrast with sibling tools such as task_decide or task_cancel.

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