scale_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'scales' implies a change in replica count and potential pod creation/termination, the description does not explicitly state that this tool mutates the deployment state, the immediate effect on running pods, or any rollback or safety mechanisms. The dryRun parameter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, missing an opportunity for transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not prioritize key information or use formatting. For a tool with 5 parameters, more detail would be beneficial without adding much length.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the scaling operation's impact on the deployment, the cluster state, or how to use parameters like dryRun effectively. Agents need more context to correctly invoke this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as relationships between parameters (e.g., dryRun with replicas) or typical use cases.

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 that the tool scales replicas for a deployment, specifying a verb ('scales') and resource ('deployment'). However, it does not differentiate from other deployment-related tools like 'create_deployment' or 'describe_deployment', which have distinct purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as creating a new deployment or modifying other deployment settings. There is no mention of prerequisites, best practices, or conditions under which scaling is appropriate.

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