worker_steer

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the rest and does not: it never says whether steering is queued or synchronous, whether it interrupts an in-flight turn, or what the error state is for an inactive worker. 'Official Codex turn/steer' hints at the underlying mechanism but describes no observable behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint ('active Worker') appears early. It is efficient, though the 'official Codex turn/steer' clause is jargon that consumes space without adding actionable meaning.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain the identifier, the direction payload, and the outcome of a successful or failed steer. None of these are covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the call's effects.

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% and both parameters are merely constrained by length, so the description is the only source of meaning. It gestures at 'direction' as the steering payload but never explains what taskId identifies or how direction is consumed (free text? instruction? structured?).

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 and resource ('Give an active Worker a precise direction change') and names the underlying mechanism (Codex turn/steer). It is clearly distinct from sibling reads like worker_status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, worker_respond.

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 qualifier 'active Worker' implies a precondition, so the agent can infer that the worker must already be running. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what happens if the worker is not active, and no routing to worker_respond, worker_extend, or worker_start as alternatives.

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