pbs_tape_drive_clean

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does so by stating it is a mutation, consumes one use-cycle of a cleaning cartridge, takes the drive offline, has no digital undo, defaults to dry-run, requires confirm for execution, and returns specific output. It also mentions required config (PROXIMO_PBS_*).

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 concise (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with key information (MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM). It avoids fluff, though the risk details could be more structured. Overall efficient but not perfectly formatted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, but it does summarize the two possible outcomes (PLAN vs. status/UPID). It covers mutation, risk, dry-run, execution, auth config, and resource impact. For a tool with three parameters and moderate complexity, this is 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that 'confirm' false returns a plan, true executes, and 'proximo_target' selects a multi-target config. This adds meaningful usage nuance, raising the score to 4.

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 'MUTATION: run a cleaning cycle on a drive.' It provides a specific verb-resource pair and uses 'MUTATION' to signal write intent. Among sibling tape drive tools (e.g., format, catalog, load_media), cleaning is a distinct operation, so differentiation is clear.

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 dry-run vs. execution behavior ('Dry-run by default... confirm=True executes') and notes the finite consumable and downtime. It does not explicitly contrast with other drive tools, but the cleaning function is unique. The auth config note adds context.

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