pmg_mynetworks_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that it is a mutation with medium severity, dry-run default behavior, the effect of removal (internal senders become subject to spam filtering), and the response format (PLAN for dry-run, status/result for confirm). It also mentions the need for a specific config, covering potential side effects and prerequisites.

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, front-loaded with the core action and mutation level. It is concise with no superfluous text, and each sentence adds value: operation, dry-run explanation, alternative, side effect, and output format.

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 lack of annotations and a moderate number of parameters (3), the description thoroughly covers behavior, prerequisites, side effects, and output. It compensates for missing annotations and provides a complete picture for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the confirm parameter behavior but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. The dry-run and confirm info is already in the schema, so the description is supplementary but not enhancing. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it removes a CIDR from the PMG mynetworks trusted relay list. It is labeled as a mutation and distinguished from the sibling 'pmg_mynetworks_add' which is mentioned as the alternative for undo. The verb 'remove' and resource 'CIDR from PMG mynetworks' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states dry-run by default, requires confirm=True to execute, and needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config. It also notes the lack of an undo primitive and directs to pmg_mynetworks_add as the alternative. This provides clear when-to-use and 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.