pbs_remote_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states it is a mutation, dry-run by default, and details the password redaction policy including what is redacted and on which surfaces. It also notes the TLS fingerprint is not redacted and mentions the smoke-confirm for parameter naming. This is comprehensive 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 relatively long but well-structured: it starts with the core action, then details redaction, then rollback, then the API endpoint, then a smoke-confirm note. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds value. It could be more concise, but the structure is logical.

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 complexity (mutation with dry-run, redaction, multiple parameters), the description covers essential behavioral aspects. It lacks explicit mention of the output schema or return values, but since an output schema exists, that is partially mitigated. Some context like the effect of a dry-run versus actual creation on the server could be more explicit.

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 only 11%, meaning the schema provides little parameter info. The description does not explain most parameters beyond a high-level note about auth-id vs authid and port naming. It does not add meaning for host, name, password, confirm, fingerprint, comment, or proximo_target beyond what the schema provides. The parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'PBS remote sync-source', and the action type 'MUTATION'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_remote_delete by explicitly mentioning the rollback alternative. The dry-run default adds specificity.

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 guidelines: dry-run by default and confirm=True to execute. It also mentions the rollback primitive (delete remote). However, it does not explicitly compare with other creation tools or specify when to use this tool over alternatives beyond the rollback note.

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