pmg_action_disclaimer_update

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run by default, partial updates (only non-None fields sent), and the response format when confirm=True. Minor gaps: dry-run response format not detailed, and behavior regarding the proximo_target parameter is not discussed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key information (mutation type, default behavior, source of id_). 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: update action, dry-run, id_ source, partial updates, and confirm execution. It lacks details on dry-run response format and the proximo_target parameter, but given the output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: id_ comes from pmg_action_objects_list, non-None fields are sent, and confirm=True executes with specific return format. This helps the agent understand partial update mechanics.

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 updates a disclaimer action object in PMG RuleDB, with dry-run by default. It distinguishes from the create sibling tool (pmg_action_disclaimer_create) and references pmg_action_objects_list for obtaining the id_.

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 explains when to use the tool (for updating existing disclaimer action objects) and default behavior (dry-run). It mentions the source of id_ and the effect of confirm=True. However, it does not explicitly exclude creation or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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