Snowflake Warehouse Scale And Execute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context that restoration of the previous warehouse size is optional, but it does not explain failure behavior (e.g., whether restoration happens if the query fails), permissions required, or concurrency implications. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a moderate addition.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'Composite recipe' so the agent immediately understands the orchestration nature. 'Safely' is a vague filler word, but otherwise every clause earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a terse tool.

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?

The tool is a multi-step composite with side effects, and the description is one sentence. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but ordering, failure handling, and permission prerequisites for the composite workflow are omitted. It is minimally viable but thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 carry parameter meaning. It maps conceptually to all four parameters—warehouse name and target size for scaling, query for execution, and restore_previous_size for restoration—but adds no type, format, allowed-value, or ordering detail. It compensates partially but leaves syntax undocumented.

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 specific composite action: scaling a warehouse, running a heavy query, and optionally restoring size. 'Composite recipe' distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like snowflake_resize_warehouse or snowflake_query. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 phrase 'run a heavy query' implies when this tool is useful, and the composite nature implies it should be used in place of separate resize/query calls. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no named alternatives. The guidance is present only by implication.

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