cf_scale

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects: whether scaling restarts instances, whether it requires the app to be targeted/running, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero wasted words. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it reflects under-specification captured in other dimensions rather than genuine 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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain restart semantics, target-state prerequisites, and partial-update behavior; none of that is present. Only the field list is supplied, which the schema already provides.

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 100% and each parameter already carries its own format hint (512M/1G, optionality), so the description's field list adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb (scale) plus resource (application) and the three scalable dimensions, which distinguishes it from sibling mutators like cf_start, cf_stop and cf_restart. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling or state what scaling does not cover.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is for a running vs stopped app, whether it triggers a restart, or when to prefer it over cf_push with different manifest values. The parenthetical only enumerates fields, which is not usage steering.

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