pmg_mynetworks_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation, the side effect of subjecting internal senders to spam filtering after removal, and the required configuration. It could mention authorization or rate limits but covers key behavioral traits.

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 (3-4 sentences) and front-loads key info: mutation type and purpose. It includes technical API path information without unnecessary fluff. A touch more structure could improve readability.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: operation, side effects, and prerequisites. It does not detail error handling or response format, but the output schema is expected to provide that.

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 description clarifies that 'cidr' is the CIDR to remove and 'confirm' controls execution vs dry-run, adding value over the schema (which has no descriptions for these two). However, it does not specify the CIDR format or the exact dry-run behavior, and schema coverage is only 33%.

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 'remove a CIDR from the PMG mynetworks trusted relay list,' providing a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool pmg_mynetworks_add by being the removal counterpart, and includes the 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)' label for severity.

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?

It explains the dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute, as well as the prerequisite PROXIMO_PMG_* config. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like pmg_mynetworks_add or state when not to use it.

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