Scale service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavior of its own: it does not explain that scaling is destructive/restarting, that storage is grow-only (only the schema says this), or what happens on invalid app-vs-addon combinations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no hedging or redundant restatement of the title. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a multi-parameter destructive mutation.

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 destructive, 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description leaves out app-vs-addon applicability rules, whether scale-down is permitted for storage, and any indication of the response. An agent must open the schema to call this safely, and even then storage's grow-only constraint is the only warning present.

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 67% and per-field descriptions already note 'apps only', 'addons only, grow-only', and ranges. The description only echoes the four scaling dimensions and adds no syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, so this sits at the baseline.

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 concrete verb-and-resource combination (change replica count, CPU, memory, or storage limits) for a named entity (a Lizard service), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It stops short of distinguishing itself from similar siblings such as service_set or volume_resize, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to change replica count, CPU, memory, or storage limits' gives a positive-use condition, but it never says when to prefer service_set, workspace_limits_set, or volume_resize instead, nor does it state prerequisites like the service needing to be an app vs an addon.

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