hcm_create_worker

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is already clear. The description adds value by disclosing the approval requirement and providing an example body, which gives insight into expected input. It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but for a simple create operation this is reasonable.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example is directly useful. Every element earns its place.

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?

This is a create operation with a single object parameter, but the description does not specify required fields (the example may not be exhaustive), what the response contains, or any validation rules. Without an output schema, the agent lacks information about the result or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema describes 'body' as 'Worker JSON payload' with additionalProperties allowed, which is vague. The description supplements this with a concrete example containing 'DisplayName' and 'PersonNumber', giving agents a practical starting point for constructing the payload. This goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Create a worker' with a specific resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like hcm_update_worker or hcm_get_worker by its verb and noun.

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 notes 'requires approval unless --write', which is a usage constraint, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when to use it versus other create tools (e.g., hcm_create_absence). The naming convention helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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