pws_sign_worker

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: this is the official action rather than a simulation, and it can be run in preview mode or as an immediate sign. It does not detail consequences of a real sign or confirmation flow, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode distinction. Every sentence earns its place; the negation about negotiation prevents a likely misuse without adding unnecessary length.

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 destructive 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no per-parameter descriptions, this is too thin. It leaves the preview/confirmed workflow, required parameter semantics, return behavior, and side effects unstated. The clear one-line purpose keeps it from being completely unusable.

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 0%, and none of the 13 parameters are explained in the description. The only hint is 'PREVIEW', loosely mapping to the preview boolean, but required fields like workerId, contractType, and role, and important optionals like confirmed, wagePerMonth, and contractLength, remain undefined.

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 the exact action ('SIGN a worker'), the target resource ('worker'), and the two modes (preview or immediate). The clause 'does not simulate offer/counter-offer negotiation' distinguishes it from negotiation/advice-type tools among the siblings.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for actual signing rather than negotiation, but it never explicitly states when to use it or names an alternative tool for negotiation scenarios. The 'does not simulate' clause provides a negative usage signal only.

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