Update Worker Settings

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds crucial detail: 'bindings REPLACE the Worker's full binding set'. This goes beyond annotations and warns about a non-obvious destructive side effect. It also clarifies that code is not re-uploaded, which is useful behavioral context.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second delivers the most critical warning. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the most important behavioral caveat. It omits some minor details like return values or whether non-specified settings are preserved, but overall it gives enough context to use the tool safely.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters, and the description adds the key 'REPLACES' semantic for bindings. However, parameters like logpush and compatibility_flags have no schema description and the description does not explain them, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a Worker's settings' with a specific list of settings (bindings, compatibility date/flags, logpush, observability) and explicitly distinguishes from code uploads by saying 'without re-uploading its code'. This makes the verb, resource, and scope unambiguous and sets it apart from tools like deploy_worker.

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 that this is for settings changes without code re-upload, implying use when only settings need modification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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