worker_update

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

Annotations are provided (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), which set baseline expectations. The description adds that it reports progress, implying a write operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, state dependencies, or concurrency implications beyond what annotations already convey.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes meaning: verb, object, target. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 7 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no usage context, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about prerequisites, return behavior, or when to call this tool in a workflow. The agent would need to infer much from context.

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%, so the input schema already describes all parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter-level details. Per calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's action: 'Report worker progress' to a specific resource ('orchestration scratchpad'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like worker (likely start) and worker_complete (likely finish), making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like worker and worker_complete, explicit context about the progression from worker to worker_update to worker_complete would be helpful. The absence leaves the agent without decision support.

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