pmg_action_removeattachments_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, dry-run default, partial update behavior, and the return format for confirm=True. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a medium-complexity mutation this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: identifying the mutation, explaining id_ source and partial update, and detailing confirm behavior. It is concise, front-loaded with the mutation type, and contains no superfluous information.

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 high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, usage, and behavior. It could elaborate on dry-run return format, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall complete for an update tool.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the partial update behavior (only non-None fields sent) and the role of confirm. This goes beyond the schema's type and description, aiding correct parameter usage.

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 updates a 'remove-attachments action object' in the PMG RuleDB. The verb 'update' and resource are specific, and the resource name differentiates it from sibling action update tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools like pmg_action_bcc_update.

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 explicitly states the dry-run default behavior and how to execute with confirm=True. It also notes that id_ comes from pmg_action_objects_list and that only non-None fields are sent. This provides clear usage guidance. It could mention when not to use this tool, but is adequate.

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