set_replicas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and '(reversible write)' usefully discloses that this mutates state and can be undone. It says nothing about permissions, what happens at replicas=0, or what the dry_run flag does, so key behavior remains undisclosed.

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?

Single front-loaded phrase with no wasted wording, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the mutation/reversibility note covers the safety profile. However, with no annotations and zero parameter coverage, the definition leaves too much for an agent to infer before calling a multi-target write tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description only implies replicas via the verb 'scale' and does not explain that 'names' is a list of multiple target services or what 'dry_run' changes, leaving the required parameters effectively undocumented.

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 ('Scale services'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like delete_service, restart_service, and get_service. It does not identify what a 'service' is or how scaling relates to listing/getting, but an agent can tell this is the scaling tool.

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 on when to use this versus restart_service or delete_service, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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