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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the provider replaces the node and access is disrupted during the operation, plus a way to verify recovery. Annotations only carry readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags; this adds real operational context. Minor gap: does not say what happens to in-flight sessions or whether the operation is retryable.

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 tight sentences, action first, then consequence, then prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the crucial gaps: permission requirement, expected downtime, and the follow-up health check. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents cluster_id, cluster_name, and instance_type (including its source list_instance_types). The description adds only that the target is 'another instance type', which is marginal value. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (resize) and resource (bastion/gateway node of a self-managed cluster) plus the exact CLI twin. An agent can distinguish it from harden_bastion, diagnose_bastion, and get_bastion_health without opening a schema.

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?

Names the prerequisite permission (clusters.write) and the operational consequence (bastion access drops for minutes, then get_bastion_health reports recovery). Clear context for when to use, though no explicit when-not or alternative tooling is offered.

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