pmg_action_disclaimer_create

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

Without annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it notes mutation, dry-run capability, and config needs. But it omits details on error handling, reversal possibility, or the exact side effects of execution.

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 efficiently written with no superfluous words. It front-loads key info (mutation, purpose) and concisely lists parameters, API path, and behavior flags.

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 (7 params, mutation, no annotations) and presence of output schema, the description covers core aspects: purpose, dry-run, config, parameter mapping. It lacks details on output or error scenarios, but this is partly addressed by the output schema.

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 low (14%), so description adds some value by explaining name, disclaimer, position, and add_separator. However, it does not clarify the 'info' and 'confirm' parameters beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a disclaimer action object in the PMG RuleDB, with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('disclaimer action object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_action_disclaimer_update by specifying it is a creation operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on dry-run default and confirming execution, as well as config prerequisites. However, it lacks direct comparison to alternative actions (e.g., update or other disclaimer tools) for when to use this specific tool.

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