pbs_tape_changer_create

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so admirably: mutation, risk level, default dry-run, synchronous execution, return types (PLAN or status object), and config needs. Lacks details on failure modes or rate limits, but strong overall.

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 succinct with two sentences plus a risk note and config requirement. Front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy ('MUTATION' + 'create') keeps it efficient. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 output schema exists, the description covers purpose, behavior, risk, default mode, and prerequisites. It explains return types. No major gaps; the agent has enough context 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds behavioral context for 'confirm' and risk for 'name' and 'path', but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 it creates a PBS tape changer config with 'MUTATION: create a PBS tape changer config.' It specifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish among sibling tools like pbs_tape_changer_update or pbs_tape_changer_delete, missing a chance to differentiate.

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 clear context: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, risk of misconfiguration, and prerequisite config. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when to invoke.

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