pmg_quarantine_welcomelist_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a mutation (though the risk level is noted as LOW), the dry-run behavior, and the need for a confirm flag. It also mentions the specific API path and per-user scope. It could elaborate on error handling or idempotency but provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 with four short sentences. It starts with the mutation type and purpose, then outlines usage behavior, prerequisites, API reference, and optional scoping. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's operation, execution flow (dry-run vs confirm), prerequisites, and scoping. It omits potential errors but is generally complete for a mutation tool. The inclusion of the API path adds technical context.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate. It adds context for the pmail parameter ('optional per-user scope, defaults to authenticated user'), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify the address parameter beyond implying it's the address to remove, nor does it explain confirm's role beyond the dry-run note. The proximo_target parameter has a schema description but the tool description doesn't add to it.

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 removes an address from the quarantine welcomelist, which is a mutation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add' and 'list' through the action 'remove' and the context of removing from the welcomelist. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 the dry-run default and the need to set confirm=True to execute, along with the required PROXIMO_PMG_* config. It also notes the optional pmail for per-user scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the context with sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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