pbs_tape_drive_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it is a mutation, reads the tape without modifying it, writes/updates local catalog metadata, and details parameter effects (force overrides index, scan ties up drive). It also mentions the default dry-run behavior, the execution confirmation, and the configuration requirement. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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, starting with a clear purpose ('MUTATION:'), followed by risk labeling, then parameter effects, default behavior, and config requirement. It is informative but slightly verbose for the detail already present in the schema. Front-loaded effectively.

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 complexity (mutation, 6 parameters, output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, risk, defaults, and configuration. Output schema provides return type details. The only minor omission is not explicitly stating that the drive must have mounted media, but that is clear from context. Overall, very complete.

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% (6 parameters fully described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining behavioral consequences: scan=True can tie up the drive, force=True overrides an existing index, and confirm=True executes. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 is a mutation that scans a drive's mounted media and records content into the local PBS catalog database. The verb 'scan' and resource 'drive's mounted media' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_tape_drive_clean or pbs_tape_drive_format by focusing on cataloging content.

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 the dry-run vs execution behavior and the effect of parameters (force, scan), providing context on when to use confirm. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools like pbs_tape_drive_inventory or pbs_tape_drive_label_media. The usage guidance is implied but lacks exclusions or named alternatives.

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