Saves the human-selected Worker provider, model, reasoning, and access settings for the current session. Configures worker permissions and behavior for delegated tasks.
Save the human-selected Worker provider/model/reasoning/access settings for the current session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access | No | ||
| leaseMs | No | ||
| modelId | Yes | ||
| reasoning | No | ||
| autoExtend | No | ||
| autoVerify | No | ||
| maxTotalMs | No | ||
| providerId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, confirming a write, and the description adds session-scoped persistence — a small but real increment. Beyond that it says nothing about validation failures, whether changes apply to an already-running worker, required combinations of provider/model, or the effect of the optional lease/extend fields, which is a notable gap for an 8-parameter mutation tool.
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 well-formed sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a single annotation, the description is far too thin. Nothing explains the semantics of the unrequired fields or the consequence of calling this before versus after worker_start.
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 carry parameter meaning. It names only four of eight fields (provider, model, reasoning, access) and adds no constraints, units, defaults, or value formats; leaseMs, maxTotalMs, autoExtend, and autoVerify are entirely undocumented anywhere.
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?
Specific verb ('Save') plus a concrete resource ('Worker provider/model/reasoning/access settings') and a scope qualifier ('for the current session'). It does not explicitly name the counterpart worker_profile_get or any other sibling, so sibling routing is left to the name alone.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g., worker_profile_get, worker_start, session_mode_set) is referenced. 'Human-selected' hints the values come from a UI flow, but the description never states prerequisites or timing relative to spawning a worker.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.