pbs_tape_backup

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation (MUTATION), has medium risk (RISK_MEDIUM), writes datastore contents to tape, keeps the drive busy, uses dry-run by default, and requires the PROXIMO_PBS_* configuration. It also describes the output shape for both modes.

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 well-structured with clear sections and uses colons for emphasis. It is moderately concise, containing necessary details without excessive verbosity. A slight reduction in length could be possible, but every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (15 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description provides complete context: it explains the one-off nature, the risky-write behavior, the dry-run/execution modes, configuration requirements, and key parameter nuances. No important aspect is missing.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra value by clarifying the store parameter's shape (single identifier, not the comma-separated mapping used by pbs_tape_restore) and emphasizing confirm's role. This goes beyond the schema, but the schema already handles most of the burden.

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: one-off tape backup' and clearly states it backs up a datastore to a tape pool immediately, without involving a schedule or job-id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_tape_backup_job_run, which handle scheduled backups.

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 when to use this tool (for immediate, one-off backups) and how to invoke it (dry-run default with confirm flag). While not explicitly saying when not to use it, the contrast with sibling tools (e.g., pbs_tape_backup_job_*) implies alternatives. Could be more explicit about exclusions.

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