kill_worker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that killing the worker removes the worker itself and is meant for unresponsive workers, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the work/task currently running on that worker.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the comparison with cancel_worker_item is packed into a single useful contrast. Every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive action, the description gives enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain what response to expect or explicitly warn about consequences, but the low complexity and strong sibling differentiation keep the gap small.

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 both parameters have descriptive definitions pointing to list_nodes / list_nodes(detailed). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents them adequately.

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 states a specific action ('Kill a worker on a node') with a clear resource and even includes the API endpoint. It explicitly distinguishes itself from cancel_worker_item by noting this removes the worker itself, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 names the alternative (cancel_worker_item) and gives the exact condition for choosing this tool: when a worker is wedged and not responding to a cancel. This is explicit routing guidance rather than leaving the decision to inference.

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