pmg_apt_repository_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: mutation risk, lifecycle (reads current state before planning), side effects (affects next upgrade provenance), dry-run vs execution, and response format. Also notes absence of a repository-delete endpoint, setting clear expectations.

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?

Description is dense but well-organized with labels like MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM, and CAPTURE. Some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'no automatic revert') but overall efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, dry-run, risk, output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, risk, behavior, prerequisites, parameters, return values, and limitations. No gaps remain for an agent to use it correctly.

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%; the description adds valuable context: 'handle' comes from standard-repos list, 'digest' for concurrency, 'confirm' toggles dry-run, 'node' defaults, and 'proximo_target' explained. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 begins with 'MUTATION: add a standard repository to the configuration on a PMG node,' clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like pmg_apt_repository_set and pmg_apt_repositories_get by referencing absence of a delete endpoint and alternative for disabling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (add a standard repository) and contrasts with alternatives: for disabling use pmg_apt_repository_set; no delete endpoint. Provides detailed usage notes: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, no automatic revert, and requires PROXIMO_PMG_* config.

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