worker_deregister

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It discloses the cooldown, the need for a subsequent reclaim, the unbonded status, and that disputes can still slash the bond, which are critical behavioral details.

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 structured and front-loaded: a clear purpose statement, then the cooldown timing, then implications, then return value. Every sentence contributes essential information without 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?

Despite having no parameters, the description covers the entire workflow and potential risks (cooldown, reclaim, dispute encumbrance), providing complete context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is trivially empty. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific action ('Start withdrawing your worker reputation bond') and elaborates with the cooldown and reclaim flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like worker_register and worker_reclaim.

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?

It explicitly states the cooldown duration, instructs to call worker_reclaim afterward, and warns about being unbonded for new work, giving clear context for when to use this tool and how it fits the lifecycle.

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