pbs_node_time_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature, dry-run behavior, HTTP method (PUT), and basic return format. It lacks details on error handling or idempotency, but for a simple set operation this is adequate.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with 'MUTATION (LOW):' and the key purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential behavior (dry-run, execution, required config). The output schema is not shown but the description mentions the return structure for confirm=True. More detail on the dry-run return could improve completeness, but it's acceptable.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what is in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('set the timezone on a PBS node'), the resource (PBS node timezone), and distinguishes from the sibling tool pbs_node_time_get by noting that the current timezone is also readable via that tool. The use of 'MUTATION (LOW)' upfront adds clarity.

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 the dry-run default and the execution trigger (confirm=True). It references an alternative tool (pbs_node_time_get) for reading the timezone, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over others or list prerequisites beyond the config requirement.

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