workers_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. While it identifies this as a mutation ('Update'), it does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens to the worker record when fields are updated. The mention of specific fields is helpful but incomplete for understanding the full behavioral implications.

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 concise two-sentence structure that front-loads the primary purpose ('Update worker fields') and provides essential negative guidance in the second sentence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and the complexity of having 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides the core purpose and a critical exclusion (avoiding TT fields), which is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks details on how to structure the patch_json parameter, what values are valid for status or other fields, and does not leverage the output schema context to explain return values.

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, but it only mentions the field values (status, lang, paid_until, translate_langs) without clarifying how they map to the two parameters group_id and patch_json. The description does not explain that patch_json likely contains the field updates or that group_id identifies the target worker, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics.

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 'Update worker fields' with a specific verb and resource, listing the fields that can be updated (status, lang, paid_until, translate_langs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workers_get or workers_list which only read data, and from workers_salary_quote which handles salary operations.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use this tool by stating 'Never write tt here — use workers_salary_quote or workers_tt_buy_quote', which clearly directs the agent to alternative tools for TT-related operations. It does not, however, explain when this tool should be preferred over other update tools like aiworkers_skill_update or workers_memory_edit.

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