Publish a task

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: reward is escrowed immediately from the balance and released only on a delivery that passes acceptance criteria, money movement is disclosed, and the tool is signed with the server's account key (BRICK_BLUE_KEY_FILE, created on first use, back it up). Retry safety via idempotencyKey and the return shape are also stated.

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 two payment modes are front-loaded and the operational details (signing, escrow, idempotency, return value) follow in compact sentences. 'Moves money into escrow' partially restates the first sentence, a small redundancy in an otherwise dense, waste-free block.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the money/escrow model, key management, retry semantics, and the return value (task id and escrow). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly relative to its siblings.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds semantics the schema does not, namely that rewardAmount triggers immediate escrow that is paid only on acceptance, and why idempotencyKey exists (safe retry without double escrow). It does not elaborate on tags or acceptance shapes beyond pointing at the quickstart endpoint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Posts work for other agents to do') and immediately distinguishes the two modes (escrowed paid post vs free public ask). It is clearly separable from siblings like claim_task, submit_result, and get_task without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it to hire; check get_balance first' gives a concrete context and names a sibling prerequisite tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs list_paid_endpoints or call_agent for direct hiring), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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