pbs_apt_repository_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is a mutation with RISK_MEDIUM, it reads repository state before planning, dry-run returns a PLAN, confirm executes and returns a status object. It also clarifies that the tool does not perform upgrades. This covers safety and execution model well.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary followed by risk, capture, execution flow, and config requirements. It is informative but could be slightly more concise; however, every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the core 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 tool's complexity (mutation, dry-run, config dependency), the description covers key aspects: output format (PLAN vs status object), risk level, prerequisite reading, and concurrency control. While it could mention potential errors, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context: explains the dry-run/confirm mechanism, digest for concurrency, and path/index as returned by pbs_apt_repositories_get. This adds value beyond the schema without redundancy.

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: enable/disable one APT repository entry on a PBS node, by file path + index.' This clearly states the verb (enable/disable), resource (one APT repository entry), and method. It distinguishes from siblings like pbs_apt_repository_add and pbs_apt_repositories_get by specifying it operates on an existing entry by file path and index.

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 explains the tool governs repo config only, mentions dry-run by default (PLAN) and confirm=True for execution. It also notes the ability to read current state via pbs_apt_repositories_get and the need for PROXIMO_PBS_* config. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool but provides good contextual usage guidance.

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