pmg_ruledb_rule_action_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does so by stating the dry-run default, the additive nature, that mail flow is only affected when the rule is active, and that `confirm=True` executes and returns a raw API response. It lacks information about required permissions or idempotency, but the core mutation behavior 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 and front-loaded with the mutation type and default behavior. It includes necessary cross-references without being verbose. Could be slightly more streamlined, but it efficiently conveys the essential information in a few sentences.

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?

For a mutation tool with a dry-run feature and external dependencies, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, input sources, effect on mail flow, and execution mode. Since an output schema exists, the lack of detailed return value description is acceptable. It references sibling tools for further actions, making it contextually complete.

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 describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that `ogroup` is the integer part before '_' in a compound ID from `pmg_action_objects_list`, which goes beyond the schema's numeric description. The `confirm` parameter's behavior is reiterated with a clear execution flow.

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 action ('attach an action group to a PMG RuleDB rule'), identifies it as a mutation, and distinguishes it from siblings like `pmg_ruledb_rule_action_detach` and `pmg_ruledb_rule_actions_list` by explicitly referencing them. The verb+resource pattern 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 when to use the tool (attaching an action group), how to obtain the `ogroup` parameter from `pmg_action_objects_list`, and how to check current actions via `pmg_ruledb_rule_actions_list`. It also clarifies the dry-run default and execution via `confirm=True`. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist, action group must exist) or 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.