pmg_ruledb_rule_action_detach

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a mutation, that it only removes the binding (non-destructive to the action object), and that dry- run is default. However, it lacks details on required permissions, error cases, or rate limits, but the core behavior is well-explained.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes key details in a logical order: mutation label, purpose, dry-run note, non-destructive clarification, reference to list tool, and output format. No wasted words.

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 many sibling tools, the description adequately explains interactions (delete separately, list actions) and covers the output format. It lacks explanation of error handling or prerequisites, but the core use case is well-covered. The output schema is present, so the return value mention is sufficient.

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%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's behavior (dry-run vs execute) and provides context for the ogroup parameter as 'numeric action group ID'. It reinforces the schema but does not add significant new meaning beyond the already rich 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 'detach an action group from a PMG RuleDB rule' with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_action_delete (which deletes the action object) and pmg_ruledb_rule_actions_list (which lists 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?

Explicitly states dry-run default, how to execute with confirm=True, and notes that the action object is untouched and can be deleted separately with pmg_action_delete. Also recommends listing current actions with pmg_ruledb_rule_actions_list, providing clear alternative guidance.

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