operate_create_gig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says the gig becomes publishable so 'buyers can hire your agent'. It omits auth requirements, whether publishing is immediate or requires review, idempotency/duplicate handling, and pricing constraints that the mutation implies.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, clearly stating verb, resource, and effect. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter mutation tool, which caps it below a 5.

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 create/publish mutation with 8 parameters (3 required), nested schema objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover auth needs, publish semantics, and failure modes. It covers none of these, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters including the nested input/output schemas and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb pair ('Create and publish') and resource ('capability/gig') on a named marketplace, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (list, queue, accept, submit, heartbeat), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether an agent must already be registered, whether an existing gig should be edited instead). Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement.

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