pmg_action_bcc_update

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the mutation type (MUTATION MEDIUM), dry-run behavior, need for confirmation, and partial update (only non-None fields sent). It also states the API path. This provides solid transparency beyond basic write operation.

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 packed with essential information across 5 sentences, no fluff. Headline 'MUTATION (MEDIUM): update a BCC action object' is immediately clear. 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 14% schema coverage) but with an output schema, the description covers core behavior, execution flow (dry-run, confirm), and id sourcing. It lacks details on expected dry-run output or error handling, but is largely complete for typical use.

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 description coverage is only 14% (only proximo_target described). The description adds value by explaining id_ (compound ID example '13_26') and the partial update behavior. However, other parameters (info, name, target, confirm, original) lack description, relying on their names.

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 'update' and the resource 'a BCC action object in the PMG RuleDB', with a specific API path. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_action_bcc_create (create) and pmg_action_objects_list (list), making the tool's 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?

It explicitly notes the dry-run default and confirm flag for execution, plus the PROXIMO_PMG_* config requirement and id_ source from pmg_action_objects_list. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear for updating an existing BCC action.

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