delete_worker

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the preview behavior when confirm is false/absent, and the human-approval requirement. This aligns with annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) and provides essential operational detail.

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 key information is front-loaded: the action and resource, then the critical constraint about confirm. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, its side effect (delete), the human-approval gate, and preview behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role as a 'human-approval gate' and the preview outcome, which enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 (delete), the resource (Worker script), and the key condition (confirm required, preview without it). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_worker_secret or delete_worker_route by specifying 'Worker script.'

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 explains when to use the tool (to delete a Worker script) and notes the confirm gate. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, though the context of sibling tools makes this clear enough.

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