pbs_apt_repository_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, risk level, effect on package provenance, dry-run/confirm flow, lack of revert, and configuration needs. This is highly transparent and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 paragraph with clearly separated concepts (purpose, risk, capture, revert, dry-run, config). It is front-loaded with the main action. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and mutation nature, the description covers the risk, the dry-run/confirm workflow, the relationship with other tools, and configuration requirements. It provides all necessary context for safe and correct usage, even with an output schema present.

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 the schema descriptions are detailed (e.g., handle parameter references pbs_apt_repositories_get). The description adds context about the confirm parameter's role in execution vs. dry-run. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 by providing operational context.

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 starts with 'MUTATION: add a standard repository to the configuration on a PBS node,' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting there is no delete endpoint and that removal requires pbs_apt_repository_set. It specifies 'standard repository' to clarify the scope.

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 explicitly explains the dry-run default and confirm=True execution, the absence of automatic revert, and the need to use pbs_apt_repositories_get for available handles. It mentions RISK_MEDIUM and the need for PROXIMO_PBS_* config, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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