pbs_tape_key_update_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly states it is a mutation, details the risk of lockout, discloses the root recovery copy, the secret contract that passwords are never logged, the dry-run vs execute behavior, synchronous execution, return format, and configuration requirements.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes essential information (mutation, risk, contract, behavior). It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured logically, earning its place given the sensitivity of the operation.

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?

The description explains the return format, synchronous execution, dry-run vs confirm, and configuration requirements (PROXIMO_PBS_*). It covers the key aspects needed for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits error conditions or what happens with invalid 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'force' parameter bypasses current-password via root copy, the secret contract about password logging, and the execution flow with 'confirm'. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 starts with 'MUTATION: change a PBS tape encryption key's password (and hint).' This clearly states the verb (change) and the specific resource (PBS tape encryption key's password), distinguishing it from other tape key tools like create, delete, get, list.

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 clear usage context with risk level, the role of 'force', and the need for confirmation. It explains when to use this tool (rotating a password) and the consequences, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like pbs_tape_key_create or pbs_tape_key_get.

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