autoscale_config_update

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: it labels itself [WRITE][risk=medium], notes the change is applied live 'without a redeploy', and calls the operation 'reversible'. These are genuine behavioral facts the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true) do not convey, though it never states required permissions or what failure looks like.

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-loads the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and the core purpose in one line, then enumerates args compactly. The Args block is justified given 0% schema description coverage, and there is no filler prose.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, all parameters, risk level, and reversibility. Remaining gaps (permissions, cross-parameter validation, effect on in-flight traffic) are minor but real for a medium-risk live config change.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: all six params get meaning ('per-replica concurrency target', 'floor'/'ceiling', 'inference target name from config; omit for the default'). It stops short of stating numeric constraints (e.g., min <= max) or validation behavior.

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 action and resource: live-tuning autoscale bounds (min/max replicas, concurrency target) without a redeploy. This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like autoscale_config_get and from scale_replicas_up/down, though it never names those alternatives explicitly. Clear enough for an agent to pick the right tool.

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?

Provides useful per-parameter usage guidance ('omit to leave unchanged', 'omit for the default'), which implies partial-update semantics, but gives no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives framing against scale_replicas_up, scale_replicas_down, or routing_policy_update. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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