Update autoscaling config

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation with destructive potential (`readOnlyHint: false`, `destructiveHint: true`). The description adds the API endpoint and a link to documentation, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, requirements, or whether the operation replaces the entire config. It does not contradict annotations.

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 relatively concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but the second and third add useful information (purpose and API endpoint). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the redundancy could be trimmed.

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 tool's complexity (5 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks important context: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., service must have autoscaling enabled), what happens on success, or any side effects beyond the destructive hint. The documentation link helps but is not a substitute for in-description guidance.

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 description provides no parameter-level explanation beyond the schema. With schema coverage at 60%, several parameters like `enabled` and the nested `criteria` fields lack detailed descriptions. The description does not compensate by clarifying how parameters interact, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the schema alone.

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: 'Update autoscaling config' for a service by ID, and distinguishes itself from related tools like `render_scale_service` and `render_delete_autoscaling_config` by specifying the exact API endpoint. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 implies that the tool is used to update autoscaling configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like manual scaling (`render_scale_service`) or deleting autoscaling config. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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