pmg_action_removeattachments_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: it is a mutation (MEDIUM severity), dry-run by default, requires confirm=True to execute, and sends only non-None fields. It also provides the API path and config requirement. It does not cover rate limits or detailed auth, but overall is transparent.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the mutation type and purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the verb, dry-run behavior, config requirement, API path, and parameter clarifications. No redundant content.

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 (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: dry-run, confirm, partial updates, and config requirements. It omits error handling or return value details, but the output schema can cover the latter. Overall, fairly complete for a mutation 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?

The input schema has only 13% description coverage (only proximo_target explained). The description adds value by explaining id_ (compound object ID with example) and all_ (maps to bool). However, it does not explain the other 5 parameters (info, name, text, confirm, quarantine) beyond what the schema provides, leaving gaps.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'a remove-attachments action object in the PMG RuleDB'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'pmg_action_removeattachments_create' by being an update operation. The mention of the compound ID from pmg_action_objects_list further clarifies the scope.

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 specifies that the tool is for updating an existing object and mentions the prerequisite of retrieving the ID from pmg_action_objects_list. It also notes the dry-run default and confirm flag, and the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* config. However, it does not explicitly exclude creation or provide alternatives for other action types.

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