create_worker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral details like the meaning of timeout_minutes=0 and the expected format for env_vars, which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as return values, side effects (e.g., whether the worker starts immediately), error handling, or idempotency.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds specific, non-redundant information about schema types and value formats. No filler or repetition, achieving high information density.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers only the scheduling and env-var aspects but fails to mention return values, creation behavior, or validation rules. It is adequate for simple use cases but incomplete for predictable invocation in all scenarios.

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 only 45%, so the description adds value by explaining sched_type formats, timeout_minutes semantics, and env_vars syntax. However, it ignores several parameters (output_dir, new_console, notify_on, etc.) that lack sufficient schema descriptions, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Register') and resource ('new scheduled worker'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_workers or update_worker. The additional scheduling format details reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it (creating a new scheduled worker) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_worker or create_worker_from_template. No exclusions or conditional guidance is provided, so usage context is only implied.

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