scale_statefulset

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. It only restates the intended action and parameter meanings; it does not mention side effects such as pod termination on scale-down, rollout behavior, wait/return semantics, or any permissions or prerequisites.

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 compact and well-structured: one clear action sentence followed by a lean Args list. Every line adds information, and there is no filler or repetition that would burden the agent.

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?

All parameters are covered and an output schema exists, so the mechanical call is understandable. However, with no annotations and no description of behavior or side effects, the definition is not fully complete for an agent that needs to judge the impact of a mutating scale operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section documents all four parameters with concise meanings, including defaults for namespace and cluster, adding useful semantics beyond the bare property names in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Scale a StatefulSet to the specified number of replicas.' This clearly identifies the action and target, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scale_deployment and scale_machine_set without needing to inspect schemas.

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 first sentence makes the intended use explicit: use this tool when scaling a StatefulSet. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource name in the description makes the routing obvious among the many sibling tools.

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