scale_replicas_down

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

Annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: high risk level, reversibility to the prior count, and the side effect of potentially stranding in-flight requests, with dry-run as a mitigation.

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 front-loaded with a compact risk/direction prefix and then structured arguments. The fit is appropriate for a five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, though the phrase 'reversible → prior' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.

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?

Given the complexity (write, high-risk, destructive, five parameters, no output schema), the description covers the critical behavioral and parameter details. It could mention permissions or the interaction with undo/rollback tools, but is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It documents all five parameters, including optional ones, with clear semantics: application name, deployment name, new lower replica count, dry_run preview behavior, and target defaulting.

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 ('Lower') and resource ('deployment's replica count') with production scope. The directionality directly distinguishes it from the sibling scale_replicas_up, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Provides a useful operational hint ('pass dry_run=True to preview') and notes the risk of stranding in-flight requests. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like scale_to_zero or autoscale_config_update, leaving the core when-to-use decision implied by the name.

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