Create a worker

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false), the description discloses the default active state, uniqueness constraint and CONFLICT failure mode, credit consumption, the downstream consequential actions of created workers and their approval gate, and the fact that files must be configured in the web app rather than here. This is materially more than the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the trigger options before the risk and precondition notes; nearly every clause carries information. Sentences are long and clause-dense, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is no filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers creation semantics, defaults, failure modes, dependencies on two sibling tools, and the return shape (structuredContent {worker}). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds cross-field meaning the schema does not (that tool_names and event names are validated against two sibling list tools, and that is_active defaults true). It does not explain read_only or memory_enabled defaults beyond the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Creates a custom worker (AI agent)") and enumerates the core fields plus the optional trigger kinds that shape behavior. An agent can distinguish this from heliyos_workers_update or heliyos_scouts_create without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (call heliyos_triggers_list and heliyos_workers_tools_list first, since unknown names are refused) and an explicit caution to confirm with the user because runs consume credits and can mutate records or send email. That is when-to-use, when-not-to-proceed, and which sibling tools to consult, all stated directly.

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