pbs_node_network_iface_update

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the mutation nature (MEDIUM risk), dry-run behavior, confirm parameter effect, API endpoint, return format, staging requirement, and the need for PROXIMO_PBS_* config. No behavioral aspect is hidden.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then explains dry-run, PVE comparison, confirm, next steps, and requirements. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with staging, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, dry-run, execution, follow-up operations, return format, and configuration requirement. The agent has enough info to use it correctly.

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% with good descriptions, but the description adds significant context: dry-run/confirm workflow, that options can include various fields, and the note about PBS not requiring 'type'. This elevates understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 it updates a network interface configuration on a PBS node, distinguishes from siblings by noting the staged nature and that PBS doesn't require re-sending 'type', and references sibling tools like create, delete, and get.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for mutation, mentions dry-run by default, how to execute with confirm=True, and that the change must be applied via pbs_node_network_reload or discarded via pbs_node_network_revert. Clear guidance on when to use and what to do next.

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