pmg_action_field_update

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the dry-run by default, the confirmation flag, configuration requirements, and the rejection of partial updates (error 400). This adds significant context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not describe idempotency, side effects, or the return value format, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise: it packs the action type, purpose, default behavior, confirmation requirement, config need, API path, id_ source, and a critical constraint (no partial updates) into five efficient sentences. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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, output schema exists), the description covers the most critical aspects: dry-run behavior, confirmation, config, id_ source, and the constraint on partial updates. The optional params are partially covered by the schema (proximo_target has a description). It does not describe the return value, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. Some workflow context (e.g., needing the object from pmg_action_objects_list) is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 low (14%), so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful context for id_ (source from pmg_action_objects_list) and confirm (mentioned in usage). For name, field, value, it only notes they are required and that partial updates are rejected. Optional parameters info and proximo_target are not explained in the description, though proximo_target has a schema description. The description partially compensates but is not fully comprehensive.

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 explicitly states the action ('update'), the resource ('field-modification action object'), and the system ('PMG RuleDB'). It provides the specific API path, which further clarifies the exact operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pmg_action_field_create (creation) and pmg_action_delete (deletion).

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 gives clear guidance on the dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute. It also specifies the required config (PROXIMO_PMG_*) and the source of the id_ parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., when to use this vs. pmg_action_field_create or pmg_action_delete), which would improve clarity for the agent.

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