pbs_tape_drive_load_media

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 discloses that the drive is busy for the duration, any previously-mounted cartridge is displaced, no data is touched, the dry-run returns a PLAN, and confirm=True returns a specific response with a UPID. It also states there is no undo primitive, providing critical behavioral transparency.

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 with clear sections (MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM, etc.) and front-loaded with verb+resource+key side effect. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, earning its place. Minor redundancy in explaining the return type could be trimmed.

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 complexity (real robotic action, tape drive operations), the description covers risks, side effects, prerequisites, dry-run behavior, execution response, and reversal. It also mentions the config requirement. No output schema is provided, but the return format is described. The description is comprehensive for an AI agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context: it explains the effect of confirm (dry-run vs execute) and references the PROXIMO_PBS_* config for proximo_target. While the schema already defines parameters, the description enhances understanding of their functional impact.

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 the tool is a MUTATION for mounting a cartridge into a drive via its associated changer, specifying the resource (drive) and action (mount label_text). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pbs_tape_drive_unload and pbs_tape_drive_load_slot by focusing on cartridge loading with a changer.

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 explicit guidance: dry-run by default (returns PLAN), use confirm=True to execute, and mentions the reversal tool pbs_tape_drive_unload. It also notes the prerequisite PROXIMO_PBS_* config and that the operation involves real robotic action, setting expectations for when to use.

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