scaleService

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the primary effect (changing count or size) but omits side effects, whether scaling is online, whether both optional parameters can be set together, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded and concise, effectively communicating the core purpose without any wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and only an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It does not mention which parameters are required, the relationship between container_count and container_memory_limit_mb, or any constraints. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by linking 'container count' and 'size' to the scaling action, but it does not explain the identifier parameters (app_handle, service_handle) or account_handle, and it doesn't clarify that container_count and container_memory_limit_mb are optional nullable values.

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: 'Scale a service' and specifies the scope ('by changing container count or size'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listServices or getService, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. Usage is implied by the service management context, but the description does not state when to choose this over other service tools or mention any prerequisites.

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