scale_replicas_up

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — medium risk, reversibility to the prior state, and the fact that dry_run reads the live current count and fails early if the deployment is absent. The 'reversible' framing usefully softens the destructiveHint, though no auth/permission or undo mechanics are detailed.

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?

Well front-loaded: the [WRITE][risk] tag, the core action, the dry_run rationale, then Arg docs. The dry_run sentence is longer than strictly necessary, but it conveys a non-obvious failure-mode benefit rather than padding.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers direction, reversibility, dry-run semantics, and every parameter, leaving little an agent needs before calling it. Missing only permission/auth prerequisites and any rate/limit behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it documents all five parameters including the non-obvious ones: num_replicas is constrained to a higher value, and target is 'from config; omit for the default'. Entries for application/deployment are brief but sufficient alongside their required status.

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 and resource ('Raise a deployment's replica count'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling scale_replicas_down and scale_to_zero. The [WRITE][risk=medium] tag further classifies the operation, so an agent identifies 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?

Gives clear operational guidance for dry_run=True, including why the preview is more accurate than a naive target-only check. It does not explicitly name the direction-based alternatives (scale_replicas_down / scale_to_zero) as exclusions, but the 'raise ... (higher) replica count' framing implies the boundary.

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