pbs_tape_drive_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details the mutation behavior, risk medium, effect on scheduled jobs, dry-run vs confirm execution, synchronous API, return format (null from PBS, JSON from tool), no snapshot primitive, and required config. This is thorough.

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 one paragraph of several sentences. It is front-loaded with the mutation label and clear purpose. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by removing some redundancy (e.g., 'synchronous — PBS returns null' could be combined). Still well-structured for an agent.

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's complexity (mutation, risk, conditional execution) and the presence of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how the update works, dry-run, confirm, return format, revert strategy, and configuration requirement. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the overall flow (dry-run vs confirm), which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. It also explains how parameters like 'confirm' affect execution, adding value beyond schema.

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 explicitly states 'update a PBS tape drive config' and provides a clear verb-resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, which have different purposes.

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 strong context on usage: it mentions mutation, risk level, dry-run default, confirm flag execution, and revert possibility. It implies when to use (updating existing config) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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