Update Worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that employment_status changes require human approval and that certain fields are intentionally not editable via this tool. It does not detail all side effects or response behavior, but the approval and exclusion notes add substantial transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver all essential information with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and editable fields, the second adds the approval caveat, and the third routes to the correct sibling tool. Each 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 tool with an open 'updates' object and no annotations, the description covers the core usage needs: which fields are editable, the approval workflow, and what is out of scope. It is slightly incomplete in not describing field value constraints or confirming the exact shape of the updates object, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by enumerating the valid editable fields (skill_level, employment_status, notes, age) and explicitly excluding output and rejected-part counts. This gives the agent crucial meaning for the open 'updates' object that the schema alone does not provide, though it stops short of specifying value types or formats.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a worker's editable fields'), then enumerates exactly which fields are editable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by explicitly noting that output and rejected-part counts are handled elsewhere.

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 clear when-not-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative: 'Output and rejected-part counts are not editable here; use log_hourly_output.' It also flags a special approval requirement for employment_status changes, which helps the agent decide whether this tool is appropriate.

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