pmg_action_bcc_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a mutation ('MUTATION (LOW)'), defaults to a dry-run, requires confirmation to execute, and has configuration prerequisites. The behavior of the 'original' parameter is explained in detail (controls which version is sent), adding valuable transparency beyond basic schema.

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 reasonably concise, packing key information (mutation level, dry-run, confirm, path, parameters) into a block. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage details. Some structure (e.g., line breaks for parameters) could improve readability, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, mutation, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the creation process, dry-run behavior, the original flag's effect, and the version/path. The only minor gap is the omitted proximo_target parameter, but the schema covers it. Overall, the agent has enough information to correctly invoke the 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?

The description adds meaning for 5 of 6 parameters: name, target, info, original, and confirm. It explains the 'original' flag's nuance (sends original vs processed copy), which is beyond the schema's minimal description. The missing parameter (proximo_target) is described in the schema itself, and the overall coverage is adequate. However, the description could explicitly mention proximo_target for completeness.

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 'create a BCC action object in the PMG RuleDB', specifying the verb (create), resource (BCC action object), and context (PMG RuleDB). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_action_bcc_update and other action creation tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on usage: 'Dry-run by default. confirm=True to execute. Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config.' It implies when to use (to create a BCC action) and how to execute. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and the mention of alternatives is implicit via sibling tools.

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