scale-deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'scale' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific RBAC permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens to existing pods during scaling, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a Kubernetes mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational context unspecified.

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 that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward scaling operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste or 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?

For a Kubernetes mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions requirements, error handling, what the tool returns (success confirmation, deployment object, or nothing), or how scaling interacts with other deployment properties. Given the complexity of Kubernetes operations and the lack of structured safety information, this description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain replica constraints, namespace defaults in practice, or deployment naming conventions. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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') and resource ('Kubernetes deployment') with the specific outcome ('to a specified number of replicas'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe-deployment' or 'list-deployments' by focusing on modification rather than inspection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar mutation tools like 'set-image' or 'patch' that also modify deployments.

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 appropriate permissions), when scaling is appropriate versus other deployment modifications, or what happens if scaling fails. With many sibling tools available for Kubernetes operations, 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.