complete_worker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses identity binding, no-overwrite semantics for terminal status, refusal of live spawn-managed workers, and the reaper failure behavior. These are meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: definition, usage trigger with consequence, and safety constraints. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers when to call, prerequisites (own worker), edge cases (existing terminal status, live spawn-managed worker), and the failure mode if not called. Nothing critical is missing.

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 general context about terminal status and identity but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for note, status, worker_id, and binding_token.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close'), identifies the exact resource ('the calling agent's own WORKER node'), and states the outcome ('with a terminal status'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like worker_heartbeat or cancel_worker by focusing on terminal completion of the caller's own worker.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it: when delegated work is finished, and provides a strong consequence of not calling it ('the reaper stamps the worker failed'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the identity and live-worker refusals imply when not to use it.

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