pbs_group_change_owner

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

Without annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses mutation type ('MUTATION (MEDIUM)'), dry-run behavior, effects (owner gains/loses delete/prune permissions), and reversibility ('revert by re-assigning'). It also includes the HTTP method and path. Missing details like auth requirements or error conditions, but adequate for the context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is relatively concise. It includes essential details (mutation level, dry-run, effects, prerequisite, revert note, smoke-confirm) without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall well-structured.

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 with dry-run, 7 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: effect, prerequisite, dry-run behavior, revert method, and a hint about parameter correctness. It does not detail error handling or permissions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'confirm' parameter's role (dry-run vs execute) and the 'new_owner' parameter's format (PBS auth ID). It also includes a smoke-confirm hint about parameter naming. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's action ('reassign the owner of a PBS backup group') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by mentioning a sibling tool (pbs_snapshots_list) for context, and no other sibling tool performs the same function.

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 when to use the tool (when ownership change is needed) and provides a prerequisite (use pbs_snapshots_list to see current owner). It also clarifies the dry-run default and execution via confirm=True. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative approaches.

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