scale_tkc_cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous, returns a scaling status immediately, and lowering worker_count drains removed nodes. It also clarifies that other pools are always preserved, going beyond the structured 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains the async behavior and polling follow-up, the third disambiguates from upgrade_tkc_cluster, and the fourth warns about scale-down drain. No fluff, and key behavioral caveats are front-loaded.

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?

As an async mutation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers return status, how to observe completion, and the drain behavior on scale-down. A minor gap: it does not explicitly mention that an agent should avoid scaling during other operations or whether scaling is allowed repeatedly, but given the annotations and schema richness, this is a strong definition.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by explaining the asynchronous response shape, the meaning of worker_count as desired total, and the pool_name default behavior ('Omit for the first; other pools are always preserved'). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Scale') and precise resource ('worker node count of an existing TanzuKubernetesCluster (TKC)'). Explicitly distinguishes from upgrade_tkc_cluster by noting it scales workers only and that upgrade is for the K8s version.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: scale worker count, and explicitly routes to upgrade_tkc_cluster for K8s version changes. Also notes the non-destructive nature of lowering worker_count and that nodes drain, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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