pmg_quarantine_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly marks mutation severity (medium, high for delete), permanent irreversible, dry-run default, and config dependency. Also includes a live test validation, providing high transparency.

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 and front-loaded with critical warnings, action list, and parameter usage. Every sentence adds value: mutation warning, dry-run, config, action enumeration, mail_ids format, and validation note.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and output schema present, the description covers mutation behavior, parameter meanings, and prerequisites. It does not detail return values but output schema exists. Missing error conditions or response format are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only proximo_target described). The description compensates by listing valid actions, explaining mail_ids as single or comma-separated, and describing confirm flag. It adds meaning beyond the schema for action and mail_ids.

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 applies an action to quarantined messages and lists the possible actions. It differentiates from other tools by specifying it's a mutation operation and explicitly lists the actions.

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 dry-run default, confirm flag to execute, and required config. It provides context on when to use, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools such as pmg_quarantine_spam or pmg_quarantine_virus, though the mutation nature distinguishes it.

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