update_external_worker

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update external worker configuration', which implies mutation, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately, require a restart, or are reversible), permission requirements, or any impact on existing workers. This is insufficient for an agent to assess risks.

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 extremely short (two sentences) with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. A concise description that omits important details is not a strength. It is minimally acceptable but not optimally structured for clarity.

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 has 5 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, what happens on success or failure, validation rules, or any constraints. The agent would lack essential context to use this tool effectively.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify the structure of the 'config' object, acceptable values for 'endpoint', or the effect of 'is_active'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 'Update external worker configuration' with a specific verb and resource. The addition 'System-level operation' hints at administrative scope. While it distinguishes from siblings like create, get, delete, and list by the verb, it does not explicitly differentiate from them or explain what 'configuration' encompasses.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_external_worker or get_external_worker. The phrase 'System-level operation' implies privileged access but does not explicitly state prerequisites, when not to use, or what conditions should be met before updating.

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