Terminate Worker

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

The description discloses an important behavioral requirement: 'Always requires human approval.' However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what happens after termination, leaving a meaningful gap for a destructive HR action.

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 short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the approval constraint immediately after. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers the return shape, and the action plus approval requirement are clear. However, the description lacks guidance on how this differs from delete_worker and what the termination actually changes, making it only minimally complete.

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 description does not mention worker_id or add any meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and while the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, its format and exact semantics are left to inference.

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 verb, 'Terminate', and a clear resource, 'a worker's employment'. This distinguishes it from the sibling delete_worker, which would remove the worker record, and from update_worker, which modifies worker details.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as delete_worker or update_worker. It only gives a constraint about human approval, not usage context or exclusions.

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