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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes far beyond by enumerating concrete effects (cannot claim/lease tasks, drops out of list_client_team and whoami, frees quota) and, importantly, what is NOT destroyed (history, receipts, transparency-log entries stay queryable). It also flags reversibility, which tempers the destructive hint meaningfully.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effects, followed by the reversibility escape hatch and a reference link. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/effect burden and does so thoroughly (state changes, list visibility, quota, preserved history, reversibility). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructively-but-reversibly is missing.

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%: worker_id carries format/pattern but no prose, while reason is documented in the schema itself ('Why this worker is being retired.'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline for a partially documented 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Soft-delete a worker') and immediately clarifies the scope of that soft-delete, distinguishing it from the sibling delete_worker and from unarchive_worker. An agent can pick this tool over its near-neighbors without opening any other definition.

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?

Explicitly names the reverse operation ('Reversible with unarchive_worker') and spells out the operational consequences that motivate choosing this tool. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-delete_worker rule, but the soft-delete framing makes the choice fairly clear.

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