liara_resize_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'Change database plan' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires admin permissions, causes downtime, is reversible, has rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings like 'liara_resize_app'.

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 both parameters ('name' and 'planID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are used for plan changes. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context (e.g., format of planID, where to find valid plans).

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 database plan') and resource ('database'), specifying it involves resizing resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_update_database' by focusing on plan changes rather than general updates. However, it could be more specific about what 'resize resources' entails (e.g., CPU, memory, storage).

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 like 'liara_update_database' or 'liara_resize_app'. The description implies usage for changing plans, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., database must be running), exclusions (e.g., not for scaling replicas), or sibling differentiation, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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