update_worker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions parameter optionality, but doesn't state side effects, permissions, whether it's a partial update or full replacement, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely under-specified. It provides no information about return values, side effects, or field-specific semantics, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 8%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that all fields are optional except name and task_path, but it doesn't explain any of the other 12 parameters or their purposes. The statement about required fields is helpful but insufficient for an agent to correctly set parameters.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('existing worker by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_worker or delete_worker by focusing on modification of existing entities.

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 phrase 'existing worker' implies this tool is for modifying already-created workers, not for creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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