pbs_tape_changer_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a mutation with RISK_MEDIUM, explains the dry-run behavior (captures current config to PLAN), the synchronous execution (PUT /config/changer/{name} returns null), the return value formatting, the lack of snapshot primitive, and the revert strategy. It could mention idempotency or error handling, but overall it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with each sentence adding unique value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('MUTATION: update...'), followed by risk, behavior, return value, revert, and auth requirements. No redundancy or filler; it earns its length.

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 that an output schema exists (relieving the description from explaining return values), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how it works, risks, dry-run/confirm workflow, revert possibility, and auth needs. It is thorough but could briefly mention error conditions or what happens if the named changer does not exist. Overall, it is complete for a mutation tool with well-documented parameters.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the practical implications: the 'name' parameter repoints physical hardware and affects scheduled jobs, and the 'confirm' parameter controls dry-run vs execution. This enhances understanding of parameter semantics, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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: update a PBS tape changer config,' clearly stating the verb (update) and resource (tape changer config). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list by focusing on modification details, including the effect on scheduled jobs. This provides a specific, actionable purpose.

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 explicitly explains the dry-run vs confirm workflow, which guides safe usage. It also warns that the change affects scheduled tape jobs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs pbs_tape_changer_create) or state when not to use the tool. Still, the usage context is clear.

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