set_app_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('set') but doesn't explain whether changes apply immediately, require a restart, replace existing limits, or affect running services. The existence of reservation parameters also raises unaddressed semantics around CPU/memory allocation.

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 concise sentence with no fluff; the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because it omits reservations, which are part of the tool's actual scope and could be mentioned without sacrificing brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It doesn't cover behavioral effects, reservation handling, or what happens after the call, leaving an agent uncertain about side effects and expected outcomes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond grouping them under 'CPU/memory limits'; it does not clarify the distinction between limits and reservations, but the schema's basic descriptions suffice for individual parameter meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Set CPU/memory limits for an app'), making the primary function clear and distinguishing it from siblings like set_app_env or set_app_source_image. However, it omits that the tool also handles reservations (cpuReservation, memoryReservation), so it's not fully complete.

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 context of 'CPU/memory limits' implies this tool is for resource configuration on an app, which suggests when it should be used relative to other set_app_* tools. But there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from similar resource-related operations.

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