pbs_snapshot_notes_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation, dry-run by default, captures current notes before planning, marks the plan incomplete on failure, does not affect backup data/retention/protection, and is reversible by re-applying notes. This is comprehensive and goes beyond minimal requirements.

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 very concise and well-structured: it opens with the purpose line, then explains the CAPTURE behavior, clarifies what it does not affect, mentions revertibility, and ends with the endpoint path. Every sentence is informative and earns its place 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 complexity (8 parameters, 5 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and endpoint details. However, it could briefly mention that the output schema provides details about the plan or result, but this is a minor omission.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the capture behavior (reads current notes) and the use of the confirm parameter, which provides context beyond the schema. It does not repeat schema info, which is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'annotate a PBS snapshot with notes'. It uses a specific verb (annotate) and resource (PBS snapshot). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool pbs_snapshot_protected_set, which is for shielding from pruning/GC, thus avoiding confusion.

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: it has a dry-run by default, requires confirm=True to execute, and explicitly states when to use an alternative tool (pbs_snapshot_protected_set for protection). However, it does not list other scenarios where this tool should not be used, which is a minor gap.

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