open_rightsizing_pr

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: how AWS instance IDs are resolved (Terraform state, then resource_overrides, then DB), the three modes of operation, the post-merge savings verification, and the resolution order. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is well-explained for a write 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 relatively long but well-structured into sections (overview, resolution order, modes, args, examples). Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. Slight redundancy in the examples (e.g., repeating modes) but overall efficient.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, parameter details, examples, and post-action behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the 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 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section documents each parameter in detail, including types, defaults, formats (e.g., resource_overrides JSON structure), and conditional requirements (e.g., github_repo not needed for dry_run/patch_only). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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's purpose: 'Apply rightsizing recommendations to Terraform source, optionally opening a GitHub PR.' It includes a specific verb ('apply'), resource ('rightsizing recommendations'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'open_terraform_tag_pr' which handles tag fixes. The examples further reinforce the targeted use cases.

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 details when to use the tool through modes (dry_run, patch_only, default) and provides examples for different scenarios. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or recommend alternative tools among the numerous siblings, such as 'create_rightsizing_tickets' for non-Terraform workflows. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use directions.

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