snowflake_resize_warehouse

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 states 'change' implying a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on running queries, cost implications, whether the operation is synchronous), prerequisites, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and the relevant value domain. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it provides.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return format), the description is too sparse. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., warehouse existence), side effects, or failure conditions. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, an agent would need more context to invoke it correctly and understand consequences.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'size' parameter by listing valid values (XSMALL, SMALL, MEDIUM, etc.), but it says nothing about 'warehouse_name' (e.g., that it must refer to an existing warehouse). This partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 verb 'change' and the resource 'warehouse compute size', and even lists valid size options. It is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'snowflake_warehouse_scale_and_execute' or other warehouse management tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context such as when resizing is appropriate, any prerequisites (e.g., warehouse must exist), or exclusions. The description is purely descriptive with no usage direction.

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