service_scale

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a mutating operation without being destructive. It adds crucial behavioral context: the call is asynchronous (returns before tasks are running) and only sets replica count. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the non-blocking nature, though it doesn't mention authentication requirements or error conditions.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, then a detailed paragraph on scope and behavior, followed by a concise Args and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with the most critical constraint (mode) front-loaded.

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 simple tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema (bool), the description is largely complete. It explains the return value and when to use alternatives. The main missing piece is the 'id_or_name' parameter semantics, but given the simplicity might be considered obvious. A strong description overall.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining the 'replicas' parameter as the desired number of running task replicas. However, the equally important 'id_or_name' parameter is not described, which is a gap given the low schema coverage. The description adds value for 'replicas' but misses 'id_or_name'.

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 verb 'Set' with the resource 'desired replica count for a Replicated-mode swarm service', which is specific and distinct from siblings like service_update. It immediately conveys the primary function without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it only applies to Replicated services, not Global; it distinguishes from service_update for other spec changes; and it directs to service_ps/service_inspect for progress checking. This is exemplary for routing the agent to the correct tool and follow-up actions.

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