liara_resize_disk

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. 'Resize a disk' implies a mutation operation that likely requires specific permissions and may have side effects (e.g., downtime, data migration, cost implications), but none of this is mentioned. The description doesn't address whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or has rate limits, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 with just three words ('Resize a disk'), making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and resource without any fluff or redundancy. This is an example of optimal brevity for a simple tool 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 complexity of a disk resize operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context such as what 'resize' entails (e.g., capacity change), whether it's destructive, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. For a tool with three parameters and significant behavioral implications, this is inadequate.

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 all three parameters (appName, diskName, size) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'size' refers to disk capacity. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (there are none).

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 'Resize a disk' clearly states the action (resize) and resource (disk), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_create_disk' or 'liara_delete_disk' by specifying a modification operation rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspect of the disk is being resized (capacity), which prevents a perfect score.

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., needing an existing disk), constraints (e.g., size limits or downtime implications), or related tools like 'liara_get_disk' for checking current size. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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