pmg_action_notification_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation (MUTATION MEDIUM), dry-run by default, and requires confirm=True for execution. It mentions the API path and PMG version, and that partial updates are rejected. It does not discuss idempotency, side effects, or error behavior, but the output schema (present) may cover return values. Overall, it provides key behavioral insights.

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 a single dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, behavior, configuration, path, and parameter constraints. It front-loads the action and uses clear separation (e.g., 'Dry-run by default.'). Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (9 parameters, 5 required) and low schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the mutation nature, dry-run/confirm behavior, config requirement, API path, version, and key parameter constraints. It does not discuss output, but an output schema exists. Some minor aspects like error handling or side effects are omitted, but the core information is present.

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 11% (only proximo_target has a description). The description compensates by explaining id_ (compound ID from list), the required fields (name, to, subject, body_text) and their purpose, and that body_text maps to API param 'body'. It also clarifies confirm's role. However, it does not describe info or attach parameters, leaving some gaps. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'update a notification action object in the PMG RuleDB.' It specifies the action (update), the resource (notification action), and the system (PMG RuleDB). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_action_notification_create by mentioning id_ from pmg_action_objects_list, implying it modifies an existing object.

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 (to update a notification action) and provides context: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, and the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* configuration. It warns that partial updates are rejected, guiding the user to provide all required fields. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools 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.