Deploy Worker

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds valuable context: it explicitly states replacement of code and bindings, and explains the keep_assets option for retaining static assets. It also clarifies the default workers.dev serving behavior, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a compact four-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers replacement behavior, keep_assets, and default hosting. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key behavioral aspects: replacement, asset retention, and default workers.dev. It leaves some implementation details (e.g., interaction with versioning) to the schema, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and important side 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?

The schema provides 89% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level overview of binding types and the default behavior for workers.dev, but these are already present in the schema. It does not significantly deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('Upload and deploy a Worker script') and specifies the resource (Worker script with ES modules and bindings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rollback_worker or list_workers by focusing on deployment and explicitly noting it 'Replaces the Worker's code and binding set if it already exists.'

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 context for use: deploying or updating a Worker script. It mentions optional bindings, keep_assets for asset retention, and default workers.dev hosting, which imply typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives like create_version or create_deployment, nor does it state when not to use it.

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