Why entrusting without instructing?

Matthew 25:14-15
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey."

Matthew 25:24-30

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"

Given that the master had known this "worthless" servant's ability, wouldn't the result have been better for both the master and the servant if the master, before going on his journey, had specifically instructed the servant to at least put the one talent on deposit with the bankers and/or entrusted this servant with a different task that the servant was suitable for?

Were there particular reasons why the master entrusted his property to the servants without giving instructions to the servants?