scale_deployment

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering a rollout, pod termination on scale-down), required permissions, or whether the operation is synchronous. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It lacks expected contextual information such as return value, verification method, and resource scope (cluster vs namespace), which are important given the available sibling tools like get_deployment_rollout_status.

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 zero description coverage, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the parameter names convey. It does not explain the meaning of 'name', 'namespace', or 'cluster_alias', nor does it describe acceptable values for 'replicas'.

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 the specific verb 'Scale' and clearly identifies the resource type 'Deployment' and the action 'set to specified number of replicas'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scale_statefulset and scale_deploymentconfig by specifying the exact resource type.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like scale_deploymentconfig or scale_statefulset. The usage is implied by the resource type 'Deployment' but lacks any direct comparison to sibling tools.

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