pbs_remote_update

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 clearly discloses dry-run default, captures current config, unconditionally redacts password, notes fingerprint is public, states no rollback, and explains the confirm flag. It also includes an L02 note about MCP protocol visibility. All critical behavioral traits are covered.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with the core purpose and dry-run behavior. It uses sections (CAPTURE, PRIVATE PASSWORD REDACTION, L02 NOTE) to organize information. Some repetition about password redaction exists. For a complex tool, it is appropriately structured.

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?

An output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are covered. The description provides extensive behavioral and security context. However, it lacks parameter-level explanations for most parameters, which is a significant gap given low schema coverage and no annotations.

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% (only proximo_target has a schema description). The description does not explain the purpose of most parameters (host, port, auth_id, comment, confirm, password, fingerprint). It only mentions password and fingerprint in security context, and confirm in execution context. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and low schema coverage.

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 an existing PBS remote. Dry-run by default.' This clearly states the verb (update), resource (PBS remote), and key behavior (dry-run). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, and delete by focusing on updating an existing remote.

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 guidance: dry-run by default (use without confirm first), and mentions that no rollback exists – revert by re-applying captured config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus pbs_remote_create or pbs_remote_delete. The context of updating is implied.

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