autoscale_config_update

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the operation is a write with medium risk and is reversible, but does not detail permissions, side effects, or error behavior.

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 concise (~60 words) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place, and the list format is clear.

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 write tool, the description covers the main action, parameter semantics, and key behavioral traits (live, reversible). However, it omits output description and error handling, which are minor gaps.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful parameter descriptions for all six parameters (e.g., 'New floor (omit to leave unchanged)'), adding value beyond the schema's type and title.

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 purpose: 'Live-tune autoscale bounds without a redeploy (reversible).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like autoscale_config_get and scale_replicas_up/down.

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 for quick adjustments via 'without a redeploy' and mentions 'reversible,' but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like manual scaling tools. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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