Provision a new worker set by specifying its name and worker count for Rockfish AI synthetic data and ML workflow orchestration.
Create a new worker set
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Worker set name | |
| worker_count | Yes | Number of workers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, or whether the name must be unique. 'Create' implies a mutation, but nothing about reversibility, returned identifiers, or post-conditions is disclosed.
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?
A single four-word sentence with no filler; it is correctly front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy, so it is adequate but not exemplary.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least convey what a worker set is and what happens on success. Instead it relies entirely on the schema, leaving an agent without prerequisite or post-creation context.
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%, so both parameters ('name' and 'worker_count') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or uniqueness information beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Create') and resource ('worker set'), which is enough to distinguish it from the read/delete siblings like get_worker_set and delete_worker_set. It stops short of the 5 level because it does not articulate scope or contrast with any alternative.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the informational siblings (list_worker_sets, get_worker_set). The agent must infer that this is the mutation path for creating a worker set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.