pbs_realm_pam_set

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: it marks itself as a 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)', states dry-run is default, explains that confirm=True executes and returns a dict synchronously with no UPID, mentions the config requirement (PROXIMO_PBS_*), and reassures that the worst case is a comment/default change, not a lockout.

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, containing only 4 sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides key behavioral details (dry-run, confirm, safety, config) in a logical order. 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 has 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations absent, the description covers all necessary context: the mutation type, dry-run behavior, confirm operation, synchronous nature, safety guarantee, and config requirement. The output schema handles return value details, so no omission there.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter context beyond the schema (e.g., confirming dry-run and synchronous behavior). It does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 updates the built-in PAM realm's comment/default-preselect flag. It uses specific verb+resource ('update the built-in PAM realm') and distinguishes from sibling realm update tools (e.g., pbs_realm_ad_update, pbs_realm_ldap_update) by explicitly referencing 'PAM realm'.

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 behavior and the confirm parameter to execute, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other realm update tools. The context of 'PAM has NO delete endpoint' offers some safety context but lacks comparative usage advice.

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