pmg_ruledb_rule_from_attach

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

Discloses mutation severity, dry-run behavior, and that the change only affects mail flow if the rule is active. With no annotations, it carries the behavioral disclosure burden well, though it omits idempotency or error conditions.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding value: mutation type, dry-run/confirm, config requirement, API path, parameter hints, effect condition. No waste; well-structured.

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?

Covers mutation nature, dry-run, confirmation, prerequisites, and mail flow impact. Output schema exists to describe return values. Minor missing details like error handling or idempotency, but overall sufficient for a focused mutation tool.

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?

Adds meaning for required parameters: id_ is the rule ID, ogroup is a numeric who-group ID from pmg_who_groups_list. This compensates for low schema description coverage (25%). The optional confirm and proximo_target are not explained beyond schema defaults.

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's a mutation to attach a 'from' group to a PMG RuleDB rule. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pmg_ruledb_rule_from_detach and pmg_ruledb_rule_from_list by specifying the action and resource.

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?

It mentions dry-run by default and that confirm=True executes, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use detach instead) or state prerequisites beyond the config requirement.

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