pbs_tfa_update

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: mutation, dry-run, password redaction, synchronous execution, no UPID, and config requirement. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)' for quick identification. 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 the presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers essential aspects: dry-run vs execute, auth needs, and behavior. It lacks details on error cases but is sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 minimal extra meaning, only noting password redaction similar to pbs_tfa_add. Most parameter details are already in the schema descriptions.

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 it updates a TFA entry's description/enabled flag, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like pbs_tfa_add or pbs_tfa_delete beyond the action name.

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: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, and mentions required config (PROXIMO_PBS_*). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the dry-run/confirm pattern is a strong guideline.

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