pmg_ruledb_rule_what_attach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It declares the tool as a mutation with dry-run by default, explains the confirm parameter's effect, and states the operation is additive. It does not cover potential side effects (e.g., idempotency, error conditions) but includes sufficient detail 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 highly concise with two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides necessary details without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 that there are 4 parameters, no visible output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context to use the tool effectively. It covers the core operation, parameter sourcing, and execution vs dry-run. It could elaborate on the dry-run output format, but overall it is adequate.

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% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it tells users to obtain ogroup from pmg_what_groups_list and explains that confirm=True executes while false returns a plan. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 action ('attach'), the resource ('what' group to PMG RuleDB rule), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the group type and linking to related list tools. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 guidance: where to get the ogroup value (pmg_what_groups_list), how to check current attachments (pmg_ruledb_rule_what_list), and the effect of the confirm parameter. It mentions the additive nature and that changes affect mail flow only when the rule is active. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for other group types or detaching), but the context of sibling tool names makes this implicit.

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