pbs_tape_pool_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it is a mutation, additive, dry-run by default, confirmed execution returns a specific response, and needs config. It does not cover error cases (e.g., duplicate name) or idempotency, but the level of detail is good.

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: 3 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and type ('MUTATION'), then explains risk, behavior, and requirements. Every sentence adds value.

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 dry-run vs execution behavior and return format, which adds to the output schema. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., tape changer/drive must be created first) and parameter interplay. For a tool with 8 parameters, additional context on parameter usage would improve completeness.

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% (all 8 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between parameters like encrypt and retention). There is no parameter-level elaboration in the description.

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 first sentence 'MUTATION: create a PBS tape media pool' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (PBS tape media pool). The description distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like pbs_tape_pool_delete, pbs_tape_pool_update, etc., by focusing exclusively on creation.

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: it is a mutation, low-risk and additive, defaults to dry-run, and requires PROXIMO_PBS_* config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for updating an existing pool) or name alternatives like pbs_tape_pool_update.

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