pbs_apt_update_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a mutation with no package state change ('RISK_LOW'), idempotent, and explains dry-run vs. confirm behavior. However, it does not detail authentication or authorization requirements beyond mentioning 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config.'

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 that front-loads the core purpose and risk. It is well-structured with clear sentences. Minor redundancy ('MUTATION' prefix) but overall efficient.

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 five parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, idempotency, dry-run, and execution behavior. It mentions output format for confirm. It does not elaborate on the PLAN output or return values in full detail, but is sufficiently complete for an experienced user.

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 description adds limited value beyond the schema. The schema already documents all parameters. The description provides context about confirm's dry-run vs. execution behavior and mentions the output format, which slightly enhances understanding.

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: 'resynchronize the APT package index on a PBS node (apt-get update).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_apt_updates_list and pbs_apt_changelog by explicitly noting it only refreshes the index, not installs packages.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This tool governs visibility only — it does NOT install or upgrade any package.' It also explains dry-run by default and confirm behavior, and notes it is idempotent and safe to re-run. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but sufficiently differentiates from upgrade actions.

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