delete_external_worker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It states it's a 'system-level administrative operation' and 'delete' indicates destructive action, but does not disclose whether deletion is reversible, cascading effects (e.g., what happens to associated data), or confirmation/authorization requirements. This is insufficient behavioral info for a destructive 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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter, the description should provide more context about irreversible effects, permission requirements, and typical use scenarios. The sparse description leaves an agent under-informed about critical operational aspects.

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 100% with one parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('External worker ID'). For a single-ID tool, this is acceptable but doesn't add value.

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 verb ('Delete') and the resource ('external worker'), and adds a contextual hint that it's a system-level operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_external_worker' or 'get_external_worker'. However, it could be more specific about whether this permanently removes the worker or merely marks it as inactive.

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 mentions 'system-level administrative operation' which implies elevated privileges, but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., admin role required), when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if worker has active assignments), or alternatives. Given many sibling CRUD tools exist, this is a gap.

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