create_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: the task is published to the market and carries an AIC reward. However, it does not mention whether the reward is deducted or escrowed, whether publication is immediate or subject to approval, or what happens after creation.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the marketplace, the reward currency, and the worker audience.

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 is enough for a simple create operation because the schema covers all parameters clearly. But without annotations or an output schema, the agent is not told what the tool returns, whether the task is immediately visible, or what constraints (e.g., sufficient balance or deadline validation) could cause failure.

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 the baseline is 3 and the parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a small amount of context by connecting 'AIC reward' to the reward parameter and explaining the audience for the task, but it does not enrich individual parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Publish') and a specific resource ('a new task to the AI Labor Market'), and it names the marketplace context and the reward mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like discover_tasks, accept_task, and approve_task, which concern finding, taking, or approving rather than creating.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Publish a new task' signals that this is the creation action, in contrast to discovery or acceptance siblings, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. There are no exclusions or conditions stating, for example, that a task should not be created when an existing task already matches the need.

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