pmg_ruledb_rule_to_detach

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is a mutation (medium severity), dry-run by default, only removes binding without deleting the group, and describes the confirm behavior and return format. It is transparent about the side effects and safety profile, though lacks details on idempotency or error handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return behavior. It references related tools (pmg_who_group_delete, pmg_ruledb_rule_to_list) and explains the core mutation, dry-run, and confirm flag. For a 4-parameter tool with output schema, it is 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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the dry-run default and confirm flag behavior, which helps contextualize the parameters. It also notes that 'ogroup' is numeric, reinforcing the schema description.

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 detaches a 'to' (recipient/who) group from a PMG RuleDB rule. It uses specific verb 'detach' and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pmg_ruledb_rule_to_attach and pmg_ruledb_rule_to_list.

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 dry-run by default, provides alternative tool pmg_who_group_delete for deleting the group, and mentions pmg_ruledb_rule_to_list for listing bindings. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, though it strongly implies the intended use case.

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