skypilot_pool_apply

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool is an apply-style upsert, it accepts a SkyPilot YAML, it supports rolling vs blue_green update strategies, and it returns a request_id. It does not discuss permissions or side effects on existing workers, but it meaningfully extends 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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler. The definition of a worker pool is useful but slightly verbose for the space; overall efficient.

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 (returns a request_id) so return format is covered externally. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations for auth, the description should ideally mention pool_name semantics, workers, and when an update would disrupt existing jobs. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a mutating, open-world 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that task_yaml is a SkyPilot YAML string defining resources and that mode selects 'rolling' (default) or 'blue_green'. It does not mention the workers parameter or pool_name, leaving two of four parameters unexplained, but it covers the two most semantically loaded parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create or update a worker pool') and defines what a pool is ('a long-lived set of compute resources that can host multiple managed jobs'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skypilot_cluster_launch or skypilot_managed_job_launch.

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 usage (create/update pools, choose update strategy) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives like skypilot_cluster_launch or skypilot_serve_up, nor prerequisites. It's implied but not explicit guidance.

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