pmg_ruledb_rule_from_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutation behavior, including dry-run mode, execution flag, and additive nature affecting mail flow. It also mentions the return format for confirm=True. Lacking are details on reversibility (though sibling detach exists) and potential authorization requirements, but the given information is sufficient for safe usage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences plus a note on return format. Every sentence adds essential information, with no filler or redundant content. The mutation level and dry-run default are front-loaded for immediate understanding.

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 complexity of the PMG RuleDB system and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter sources, behavior, and execution control. It references related tools for listing and detaching, which aids context. A small gap is the lack of detail on the dry-run plan output, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, but the description adds critical context: ogroup must come from pmg_who_groups_list, and it clarifies the confirm parameter's role. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions and provides practical guidance.

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 attaches a 'from' group to a PMG RuleDB rule. It specifies the verb ('attach') and resource ('from group to rule'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_ruledb_rule_from_list and pmg_ruledb_rule_from_detach by indicating its specific action.

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 provides explicit guidance on dry-run default behavior, how to execute with confirm=True, and where to obtain the ogroup value (pmg_who_groups_list). It also explains that the effect is additive and only applies once the rule is active. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative scenarios.

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