pmg_ruledb_rule_what_detach

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the mutation's behavior: it is dry-run by default, only removes the binding (not the group), and explains the confirm parameter returns a plan or execution result. This covers the key behavioral traits.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the mutation type and action, then clarifies non-destructive nature, references sibling tool, and explains the confirm parameter efficiently.

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?

The description covers the main aspects: action, dry-run behavior, non-destructive effect, listing alternative, and confirm behavior. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or required permissions, but the presence of an output schema (though not shown) and the context signals suggest it is adequately complete for typical usage.

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 value by explaining the purpose of parameters (e.g., ogroup as numeric what-group ID, confirm for dry-run vs execution) and crucially explains that proximo_target is for multi-target config. This provides context beyond 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 that the tool detaches a 'what' (content) group from a PMG RuleDB rule. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_ruledb_rule_what_attach and pmg_ruledb_rule_what_list by explicitly mentioning that the what-group itself is untouched and can be deleted separately.

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 when to use the tool and alternatives: it directs users to list current bindings with pmg_ruledb_rule_what_list and to delete the what-group separately with pmg_what_group_delete if desired. The dry-run default is clearly stated, reducing misuse.

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