Update a worker

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes far beyond by disclosing partial-update merge semantics, per-worker-type field applicability with silent ignoring of the rest on default workers, and the critical REPLACE semantics of `triggers` and `tool_names` where omission drops existing entries. It even notes that default workers retain built-in triggers and that the result is returned as structuredContent {worker}.

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 update semantics, then the type-specific rules, then the two dangerous replacement fields, then the return shape — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The middle section is densely packed into semicolon-chained clauses, which borders on run-on but keeps every fact load-bearing.

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 a 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: merge behavior, per-type field validity, replacement traps with pointers to the tools that reveal current state, and confirmation that return values are documented by the output schema. No material gap remains.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: which parameters are honored for custom versus default workers, that `triggers` and `tool_names` are wholesale replacements rather than patches, and that `is_active=false` is the pause mechanism. Constraint detail (cron format, id format, enum meanings) is left to the schema, which is fine at full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes a worker by id') plus the key scope qualifier 'what you leave out is kept', which immediately distinguishes this from create/delete siblings. An agent knows exactly what the operation does without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to heliyos_workers_get for current tools and heliyos_workers_tools_list for valid names, and names the concrete pause use case ('Set is_active false to pause a worker'). It does not spell out when to use heliyos_workers_create or heliyos_workers_delete instead, though the CRUD split makes that mostly self-evident.

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