deploy_worker

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the human-approval gate and preview mode, which are not captured by annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It clarifies that the tool is mutating but safe to retry (idempotent). However, it omits details like overwriting behavior or return value upon success.

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 concise with two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical human-gate behavior. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and the critical gate, but lacks detail on expected return values or behavior when the operation succeeds (e.g., confirmation response, possible errors). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves ambiguity for the agent, especially regarding the mutation result.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'confirm' parameter's role and specifying the script source format ('ES module source'), which relates to the 'script' parameter. This clarifies usage beyond the schema alone.

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 verb ('Create or update') and the resource ('Worker script'), specifying the source format ('ES module source'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'delete_worker' or 'get_worker' by focusing on deployment 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 to use the tool (to deploy a worker) and, crucially, explains the 'confirm' gate: 'Requires confirm:true (human-approval gate); without it returns a preview only.' This tells the agent to use preview mode for dry runs and require approval for actual deployment. However, it does not mention alternatives for other worker operations like listing or deleting.

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