heroku_scale

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 states the tool changes dyno quantities, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, cost implications, or what happens to existing dynos. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without 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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, output format, error conditions, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 parameters (appName, dyno, quantity, size). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for scaling, but doesn't explain interactions (e.g., how size affects scaling) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Scale dynos') and resource ('for a Heroku app'), with the specific verb 'Change the number of running dynos' adding detail. It distinguishes from siblings like heroku_config_vars or heroku_get_logs by focusing on scaling operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from heroku_restart, which might also affect dyno state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot scale beyond limits), or compare to siblings like heroku_restart for dyno management. The description implies usage for scaling but lacks explicit context or alternatives.

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