admin_update_worker_queue

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'White team only' as an access restriction, which is some context, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites like service existence. The name implies an update operation but gives no details.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core action and access restriction without any filler or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter admin update tool, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the operation and access restriction, and the schema covers the parameters. It could be improved by mentioning that it updates an existing worker queue assignment, but the name and schema make this inferable.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters fully with descriptions for service_id and worker_queue, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Assign worker queue to service' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling admin_update_* tools by specifying the exact action, making it unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one needs to assign a worker queue to a service, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools. The 'White team only' note is an access hint rather than a usage guideline.

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