scale_machine_set

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the mutation (patching spec.replicas) and warns about destructive consequences when scaling down. This is good, though it could mention idempotency or auth requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no superfluous content. The warning is appropriately placed and earns its keep.

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 existence of an output schema (context signal), the description need not explain return values. However, it omits any mention of what happens when replicas equals current count or the effect of the optional cluster parameter. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It hints that replicas is the target count but does not explain 'name' or 'cluster'. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool scales a MachineSet by patching spec.replicas. This is a specific verb and resource, and among sibling tools like list_machine_sets or delete_machine, scaling is distinct and unambiguous.

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 includes a warning that scaling down causes deletion of machines and nodes, which advises caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like editing the MachineSet directly or using other scaling methods.

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