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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the substantive preconditions and the failure mode ('Anything with history returns 409'), which the annotations cannot convey. It also explains the rationale (audit trail survival), which is exactly the kind of context that prevents a mistaken destructive call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the precondition, then the failure/alternative. The trailing API reference link is compact and useful. No sentence is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, precondition, failure behavior, and the safe alternative — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and avoid misuse.

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?

Only one parameter (worker_id), whose name and uuid format in the schema are self-explanatory, so the description need not do much. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the parameter at all; it does not clarify that only mistakenly-created workers qualify, which is already covered under usage. Baseline 3 for a single well-named parameter with no compensating detail.

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 specific verb and resource ('Hard-delete a worker') and immediately scopes it, so an agent can distinguish it from archive_worker or revoke_worker_key without opening a schema. The title plus first sentence leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states when it is permitted ('ONLY when the worker has never been assigned a task and holds no receipts, leases, or handoffs') and names the alternative for the excluded case ('must be retired with archive_worker instead'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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