pmg_ruledb_rule_to_attach

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is a mutation (MUTATION MEDIUM), is additive, and only affects mail flow when the rule is active. It explains the dry-run/confirm behavior and the return format on execution. Missing info on idempotency or error on duplicate attachment.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and mutation severity. Subsequent sentences provide parameter hints, behavioral context, and return format. Well front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, mutation, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, safe usage (dry-run), and return format. It could mention that it is specific to 'to' groups, but the tool name already implies that. The output schema exists, so not detailing return fields is acceptable.

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%, but the description adds value beyond it: for ogroup, it specifies its source (pmg_who_groups_list); for confirm, it clarifies dry-run vs execution semantics. The other two parameters are adequately described in 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 the verb 'attach' and the resource 'a to (recipient/who) group to a PMG RuleDB rule'. It distinguishes from siblings like pmg_ruledb_rule_to_list and pmg_ruledb_rule_to_detach by specifying the action and scope.

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 clear context: it defaults to dry-run, requires confirm=True to execute, and references ogroup from pmg_who_groups_list. It lists related tools for listing current 'to' groups, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or contrast with other attach tools (e.g., from_attach).

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