worker_complete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., finality, irreversibility, or if it can be called multiple times). The description carries little extra value beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly more detail would improve value without harming conciseness.

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 3 required parameters, a complex nested object (extractedData), and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the worker lifecycle context, what happens after completion, or how results are structured.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already provides clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond framing parameters as 'final results'.

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 tool marks a worker as complete with final results, distinguishing it from worker_update among siblings. However, it does not specify what 'mark as complete' entails in terms of lifecycle or side effects.

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 like worker_update or when not to use it. There is no indication of prerequisites or postconditions.

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