scale_services

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context such as execution details, side effects, or reversibility, thus adding minimal value beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite good parameter schema coverage, the description lacks information about return values, execution flow, or what happens after scaling. The presence of nested objects and a validation-only option are not mentioned, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's full behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and provides descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 uses specific verbs 'scale up or down' and identifies the resource 'services' with a condition 'based on resource analysis', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle VMs, deployments, or network topology.

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 implies usage after resource analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'check_service_requirements' or 'install_service', nor does it provide exclusions.

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