liara_resize_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'change app plan (resize resources),' which implies a mutation that modifies app resources, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, causes downtime, is reversible, has rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word ('Change,' 'app plan,' 'resize resources') earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. For a tool that changes app resources, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' as app name, 'planID' as new plan ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Change app plan') and resource ('app'), specifying it involves resizing resources. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'liara_get_app' or 'liara_delete_app' by indicating a modification rather than retrieval or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other resize tools like 'liara_resize_database' or 'liara_resize_vm', which target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), when not to use it (e.g., during active deployments), or direct alternatives like 'liara_update_database' for other resource types. Usage is implied only by the verb 'change,' with no explicit context or exclusions.

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