pmg_ruledb_rule_action_attach

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states mutation, dry-run behavior, config requirement, and conditional effect on mail flow. Missing details on side effects like appending vs overwriting, but overall adequate.

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?

Extremely concise: four lines covering mutation, dry-run, config, API path, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence earns its place, 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 no annotations, 4 params, and existing output schema, the description covers mutation, dry-run, config, path, and effect condition. It omits what happens on dry-run and prerequisites (rule existence), but still largely 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?

Schema coverage is low (25%), so description compensates by explaining id_ and ogroup in plain language. confirm is referenced indirectly. proximo_target is covered by schema. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 attaches an action group to a PMG RuleDB rule, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detach and list by naming the action and providing the API path.

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 for confirm=True to execute, and notes the config requirement. It implicitly distinguishes from list/detach siblings but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance.

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