Delete Worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that deletion is permanent (irreversible) and that human approval is mandatory, which are useful traits. It does not mention side effects on related data, history, or the approval mechanism itself.

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 concise sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The additional human-approval note earns its place as critical operational context.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the core action and a key constraint. However, the existence of 'terminate_worker' as a sibling creates ambiguity, and the description lacks detail about what happens after deletion, the approval flow, or the output. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the sibling disambiguation gap remains.

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 input schema has no description for worker_id (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the parameter's format or semantics beyond the obvious implication that it identifies the worker. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds no concrete detail.

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 ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('a worker's record'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'terminate_worker', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'terminate_worker' or 'update_worker'. The only usage-related note is 'Always requires human approval,' which is more of a precondition than a selection guideline.

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