oci_kafka_scale_cluster

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the operation is high risk, requires confirmation, and is asynchronous. It also references --allow-writes, implying authorization needs. Good coverage of behavioral traits.

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 with a succinct main sentence followed by bulleted details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and the description's coverage of asynchronous tracking, it is fairly complete. Minor gap: no constraints on broker_count (e.g., min/max) are mentioned, but overall adequate.

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 description adds clear semantics: cluster_id is an OCID, broker_count is target number of broker nodes. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 scales an OCI Kafka cluster to a different broker count, with a specific verb ('scale') and resource ('OCI Kafka cluster'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'oci_kafka_recommend_scaling' by focusing on execution rather than recommendation.

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?

It mentions the requirement for --allow-writes and the high risk nature, indicating when to use cautiously. It also guides the user to track progress via oci_kafka_get_work_request. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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