pbs_realm_pbs_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: it's a mutation, dry-run by default, synchronous, returns a dict only on confirm=True, no UPID, and the worst-case impact. It also specifies the required configuration environment. This is highly transparent.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that cover purpose, behavior, safety, parameters, and config needs. It is front-loaded with the mutation type and uses clear, scannable formatting with semicolons. No unnecessary words.

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 no annotations and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers the mutation's purpose, dry-run behavior, confirmation, synchrony, safety constraints, and configuration requirements. It provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke this tool without needing additional information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'comment/default-preselect flag' but does not elaborate beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The schema already describes each parameter (e.g., 'Optional SHA256 config digest...'), so the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 starts with 'MUTATION (MEDIUM): update the built-in PBS-auth realm's comment/default-preselect flag.' It clearly states the verb (update), the resource (built-in PBS-auth realm), and the specific fields. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this realm has no delete endpoint, making its purpose unique among the many pbs_realm* tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Dry-run by default. confirm=True executes and returns a dict; synchronous, no UPID.' It also warns about the scope ('worst case is a comment/default change, not a lockout') and mentions config prerequisites ('Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config'). However, it could explicitly state when to avoid this tool, but given the context, this is well-handled.

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