scale_replicas_down

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as [WRITE][risk=high], mentions reversibility, and warns that fewer replicas can strand in-flight requests. This provides good behavioral context, though it could include more on authentication or rollback specifics.

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: a header line, a warning line, and an Args block. It front-loads key information (risk, reversibility, preview). It could integrate inline parameter docs but is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description explains parameters and provides risk warnings, but lacks information about return values or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). Given no output schema, this is a gap, but overall it is adequate for a focused write tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an 'Args' section that clearly explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'dry_run: If True, preview without scaling'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Lower a deployment's replica count on prod'. It specifies it's a WRITE operation with high risk and mentions reversibility. The sibling tools include scale_replicas_up and scale_to_zero, making the differentiation implicit.

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 advises when to use the tool (to lower replica count) and provides a usage hint: 'pass dry_run=True to preview'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like scale_to_zero for setting to zero.

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