pbs_datastore_update

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it is a mutation, dry-run by default, captures current config before planning, marks plan incomplete on read failure, has cluster-wide impact for certain parameters, and lacks a rollback primitive. The mention of 'Smoke-confirm' for parameter naming adds extra detail.

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 concise, front-loaded with the mutation label and primary action. It includes structured sections (CAPTURE, parameter impacts) and the HTTP endpoint. Some jargon ('Smoke-confirm') may be unclear, but overall it is well-organized.

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 complexity (mutation with side effects) and no annotations, the description covers important behavioral aspects like dry-run and no rollback. However, it lacks parameter-level guidance for most parameters (e.g., comment, notification_mode) and does not mention permissions or prerequisites. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required.

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?

The description only adds context for gc_schedule and prune_schedule (cluster-wide impact) and mentions a naming convention ('hyphenated vs underscored'). Schema description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not explain comment, notification_mode, or confirm beyond its role in execution. This provides minimal additional meaning over the schema.

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 tool updates PBS datastore configuration. The verb 'update' differentiates it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, though it does not explicitly compare to them. The context of 'configuration' further clarifies its purpose.

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 implicit usage guidance by noting the dry-run default, the need for confirm=True to execute, and the cluster-wide impact of gc-schedule and prune-schedule. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide prerequisites.

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