pmg_action_bcc_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature with risk level 'LOW', the dry-run default, the execution behavior with confirm=True, and the response format. However, it does not detail failure modes or idempotency, which would make it more transparent.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a third for the return format. It front-loads the purpose and default behavior, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (6 params, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers the core workflow: creation, dry-run vs execution, configuration requirement, and relation to siblings. The output schema handles return values. Minor gaps like error handling or name conflicts do not significantly detract from 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'dry-run PLAN' for confirm=False). It does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'BCC action object', and the context 'PMG RuleDB'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_action_objects_list and pmg_ruledb_rule_action_attach by specifying the tool's unique role in the workflow.

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 when to use this tool ('create a BCC action object'), how to prepare (list existing actions with pmg_action_objects_list), and what to do after (attach to a rule with pmg_ruledb_rule_action_attach). It also mentions the required config (PROXIMO_PMG_*) and the dry-run vs execution behavior via confirm parameter.

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