alter_worker_limit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the one-step increment/decrement behavior and the need for repeated calls, but it does not mention side effects, failure conditions, permissions, or what happens to existing workers when the limit changes.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the repeated-call guidance earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool, the description is largely complete: it states the action, scope, endpoint, and the key nuance about repeated calls. A small gap is the lack of any note about return values or error conditions, but this is minor given the simple contract.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the one-step directionality, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: increasing or decreasing by one the number of workers of a given type on a node. It is specific about the verb, resource, and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like kill_worker or cancel_worker_item.

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 tool is used to adjust worker limits incrementally, and it explicitly instructs to call repeatedly to move the limit by more than one. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as kill_worker or restart_node.

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