set_pool_autoscale

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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description's added value is the disclosure of risk level ('risk=medium') and, more importantly, that the operation is reversible to a prior state — which points the agent at the undo_list/undo_apply siblings. There is mild tension between 'Reversible' and destructiveHint=true, but the two describe different axes (mutation vs. undo support) and the description adds real context rather than restating the hints.

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?

Front-loaded: the risk/write tag and the core purpose appear in the first line, followed by a compact per-argument block. Every sentence carries information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 low-complexity 3-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, all parameters, risk, and reversibility — enough to call it correctly. It does not say whether the change takes effect immediately or what happens on an invalid mode, but those gaps are minor at this complexity.

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 0% and the schema exposes no enum for mode, so the description carries the full documentation burden and does so: it gives the three legal mode values, sources pool_name from pool_ls, and explains target's default behavior ('omit for the default'). Without it the agent would have no way to know valid mode values.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Set a pool's PG autoscale mode' — and enumerates the accepted values (on/off/warn), making the scope unmistakable. This is clearly distinct from the other set_pool_* siblings (quota, pg_num, size) without the agent needing to open any 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent where to get pool_name ('from pool_ls') and that the change is reversible to a prior state, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or sibling comparison. There is no statement of prerequisites or of what to do instead for related pool settings.

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