create_external_worker

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Create' (mutation) but does not mention what happens on duplicate names, validation of endpoint, whether changes are reversible, or what response is returned. The agent remains unaware of side effects or constraints.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than conciseness; additional useful information could be added without becoming verbose. Still, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description should at least indicate what is returned (e.g., created worker object). It also lacks context about system-level permissions or side effects. For a creation tool with 4 parameters including a nested object, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how 'config' or 'is_active' affect creation, nor the expected format of 'endpoint'. No additional value provided.

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 states 'Create a new external worker' which clearly identifies the action and resource. Adding 'System-level operation for worker management' slightly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_external_workers or update_external_worker, though it could be more precise about what 'external worker' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_external_worker or delete_external_worker. The phrase 'System-level operation' hints at authorization context but does not direct the agent on prerequisites or exclusions. With multiple worker management siblings, explicit usage guidance is missing.

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