scale_cluster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions adding/removing worker nodes, but does not disclose that removing nodes may be destructive, that scaling may be asynchronous, or that SSH configuration is required. The effect on existing workloads is not addressed.

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 clear wording and no filler. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 involves a nested ssh_config object and side effects like adding/removing nodes, but the description does not explain SSH requirements, provisioning behavior, or expected outcomes. With no output schema or annotations, important context is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already defines node_count as 'Desired total number of worker nodes' and cluster_id as required. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema and does not clarify ssh_config usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scale') with a clear resource ('a cluster') and scopes the operation to 'adding or removing worker nodes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cluster and delete_cluster, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as provision_cluster or deprovision_node. The context is implied by the verb 'scale,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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