create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the escrow behavior of reward_credits and the condition requirement, which are important side effects. But it does not mention other potential behaviors such as whether the task is immediately visible, any permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens on failure.

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 no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical condition constraint is stated immediately. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and one key input rule. However, it omits details like what the success response looks like, any prerequisites (e.g., guild membership), and the exact mechanics of the escrow, leaving gaps for an agent to fill via inference.

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 50% (only guild, expiry, and condition have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'condition' (stranger-runnable check) and implies the escrow effect on reward_credits, but it does not compensate for undocumented parameters like title, brief, and reward_credits beyond the schema's basic constraints.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('task') with location ('in a guild'), and adds a key constraint on the 'condition' field. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_tasks, get_task, and close_task, which have different purposes.

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?

Implies the primary use case (creating a task) and gives a specific requirement for the 'condition' parameter (must be stranger-runnable), which guides how to populate it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like close_task or submit_work for other task lifecycle actions.

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