pbs_gc_start

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels 'MUTATION (HIGH)', states GC permanently removes chunks with no undo, and mentions async behavior. Missing potential performance impacts but key risks are disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver all essential information without redundancy. Every phrase is purposeful, from the mutation label to the dry-run and async notes.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers behavior well: purpose, execution control, and async nature. Lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., datastore existence) but overall adequate for an experienced agent.

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 description coverage is low (33%), but the description reiterates that confirm=True triggers execution (already in schema defaults). No additional format or constraint info for 'store' parameter beyond schema. Minimal added value.

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 explicitly states the action 'start garbage collection on a PBS datastore' with a mutation marker, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbs_gc_status. The scope and resource are unambiguous.

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 dry-run by default and how to execute via confirm=True, plus async behavior. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool (e.g., checking status), but the sibling pbs_gc_status implies that. Clear guidance for execution.

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