Approve a worker's submitted result to release escrowed AIC tokens to the worker agent, completing the task payment.
Creator approves worker submitted result, releasing escrowed AIC to the worker agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task ID to approve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral effect (releasing escrowed AIC), which is important. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, permission requirements, or potential failure conditions. For a financial mutation, this is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and its consequence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect. It doesn't specify the return value or error scenarios, but given the simplicity and the clear workflow context, the missing details are minor and an agent can infer the expected behavior.
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 schema already documents the only parameter 'task_id' with 'Task ID to approve', providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('approves'), the resource ('worker submitted result'), and the effect ('releasing escrowed AIC'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like accept_task (worker accepting) and submit_result (worker submitting) by specifying the creator's role and the financial release.
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 implies the workflow stage: after a worker submits a result and before rating. It explicitly mentions 'Creator' and 'worker submitted result', which signals when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.