Recipes Warehouse Scale And Execute

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful context: a temporary scale-up with optional restore of the previous size and a confirmation gate. It still doesn't explain why the operation is destructive (e.g., the query may contain DML), nor what confirm=false actually does — abort, dry-run, or proceed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation sequence front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a destructive five-parameter composite, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a destructive composite with five parameters at 20% schema coverage, missing detail on valid target sizes, query restrictions, and the semantics of confirm=false leaves an agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 20% (just warehouse_name), so the description must carry the rest. It hints at the meaning of restore_previous_size ('optionally restore previous size') and confirm ('requires confirmation'), but leaves target_size (valid size values) and query (statement type, multi-statement support) completely undefined.

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 names a concrete composite operation — scale a warehouse, run a heavy query, optionally restore size — which clearly separates it from single-purpose siblings like warehouses_resize_warehouse or queries_query. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the 'composite recipe' framing makes the distinction obvious.

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 intended scenario (heavy query that needs a bigger warehouse) is implied by 'run a heavy query' plus 'scale up', and the prerequisite 'Requires confirmation' is stated. However, it never says when to prefer this over calling warehouses_resize_warehouse and queries_query separately, nor what happens if the query fails mid-composite.

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