pbs_metrics_influxdb_http_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states that this is a mutation operation with medium risk, that the token is never written to the audit ledger or dry-run plan, that the operation is synchronous and returns null from PBS, and that rotating key fields can silently break metrics delivery. This level of detail is exemplary for transparency.

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, using short sentences and clear labels like 'MUTATION' and 'RISK_MEDIUM'. It front-loads the purpose and risk, then provides key behavioral details. While it could benefit from bullet points for clarity, the current structure is efficient and avoids verbosity.

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 (13 parameters, mutation, secret handling), the description covers all critical aspects: risk, token security, dry-run vs confirm, synchronous response format, and configuration prerequisites. It also references sibling behavior for comparison. The description is complete enough for an agent to safely use the tool without additional context.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as the token secrecy policy and the fact that 'name' and 'url' are not deletable but must be rotated with new values. This additional information helps the agent understand parameter constraints without repeating schema content.

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 begins with 'MUTATION: update a PBS InfluxDB http metrics server configuration,' clearly stating the verb 'update' and the specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list by focusing on the update operation. The inclusion of risk level and comparison to a similar tool (pbs_s3_client_update) 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 explicitly explains the dry-run default behavior and the confirm=True execution path, providing clear guidance on how to use the tool. It also mentions the requirement for 'PROXIMO_PBS_* config' and the synchronous nature. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the implied comparison to pbs_s3_client_update and the specific mutation context offer good guidance.

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