pmg_action_disclaimer_update

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run behavior, confirmation requirement, config dependency, and partial-update behavior ('Only non-None fields sent'). Version and API path are included. No mention of rate limits or error states, but sufficient for an update 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?

Description is succinct and front-loaded. First sentence states core purpose, followed by bullet-like lines for confirm, config, path, and key parameters. Every sentence adds value with no 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 8 parameters and no output schema visible (but noted as present), the description covers mutation type, safety (dry-run), API path, and parameter specifics for id_, position, and add_separator. Return values are not needed due to output schema. It could mention response or error cases but is mostly 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 only 13%, but description adds meaning for key parameters: id_ (compound ID from list), position (validated: start|end), add_separator (converted to 'add-separator'), and the 'Only non-None fields sent' behavior. info, name, disclaimer are not elaborated, but partial coverage compensates for low schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'update a disclaimer action object in the PMG RuleDB' with the verb 'update' and specific resource 'disclaimer action object'. The 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)' label reinforces the side-effect nature. The tool name includes 'disclaimer_update', so it's distinct from creation and other action updates.

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?

Provides some usage guidance: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config, and how to obtain id_ from pmg_action_objects_list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from pmg_action_disclaimer_create or other action update tools, leaving the agent to infer when to use this vs alternatives.

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