pbs_tape_backup_job_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it's a mutation (RISK_MEDIUM), describes dry-run default behavior, the effect of confirm=True, the API endpoint method (PUT), synchronous execution, and the return format. It also mentions configuration requirements (PROXIMO_PBS_*). Some details like error states or prerequisites are omitted, but overall 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 very concise: three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the tool type ('MUTATION:') and action, then efficiently conveys risk, behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds value.

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 (19 parameters, mutation, dry-run option), the description covers the core behavior, risk level, effect on next run, configuration requirement, and return format. It lacks explanation of the digest parameter for optimistic locking and partial update semantics, but these are partly inferred from the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping of modifiable fields but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers. The dry-run/confirm behavior is already covered by the schema's confirm parameter description.

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 it updates a PBS tape backup job, specifies it's a mutation, and lists what can be changed (drive, pool, store, schedule, filters). It distinguishes this as an update operation for scheduled jobs, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create, delete, get, list, or run.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., create for new jobs, delete to remove, get to retrieve configuration). It only explains the dry-run and confirm workflow, which is usage within the tool, not tool selection.

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