ibmcloud_ks_worker_pool_resize

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Resize' which implies mutation, but does not explain whether it causes downtime, how it affects existing workers, or whether changes are reversible. Critical operational context is missing.

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 extremely concise with no filler; it is front-loaded and to the point. While it could include more information, it earns its place as a clear, minimal statement of the tool's core function.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the resize operation's impact, prerequisites, or expected results. It is too minimal to fully inform an agent on a mutation tool that affects cluster infrastructure.

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 100% with all three parameters (cluster, pool, size_per_zone) clearly documented. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Resize') and the resource ('worker pool'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create or list pools, which is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus creating a new pool or scaling other resources. There are no prerequisites, context, or alternative references, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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