pbs_tape_restore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses: mutation writes into existing datastore, namespaces auto-created, uncertain behavior on existing snapshots, media-set can span many snapshots, dry-run default, confirmation required, and returns either a plan or a status with UPID. It also flags HIGH risk. This is comprehensive 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 front-loaded with critical information: mutation, risk, dry-run default, confirmation. It then provides caveats about existing snapshots and spans. It is concise despite covering complex behavior, with no wasted words. 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?

Given 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains dry-run vs. execution, the nature of a media-set, auto-creation of namespaces, and the need for configuration. It also notes uncertain behavior (existing snapshots). This leaves minimal ambiguity for a complex 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for several parameters: 'store' format with mapping syntax, 'confirm' default and effect, 'snapshots' selective vs. whole media-set, 'namespaces' mapping and auto-creation. This goes beyond the schema. However, parameters like 'drive', 'owner', 'notify_user' are not further explained in the description, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 restores data from a tape media-set into a datastore. It specifies the verb ('restore'), resource ('tape media-set to datastore'), and highlights key behaviors like dry-run and confirmation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_tape_backup.

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 implies usage for tape restore operations and notes that a dry-run is default and confirmation is needed to execute. It mentions the need for PROXIMO_PBS_* config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., pbs_restore or other restore tools) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This is a minor gap given the large sibling list.

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