pmg_ruledb_rule_what_detach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run behavior, and effect condition, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or reversibility. The API path provides some context.

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 concise with 5 lines, front-loaded with the action and type, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the operation, prerequisites, and effect. Missing details like what happens if the ogroup doesn't exist, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is only 25%, but the description adds meaning for 3 parameters: id_ (rule ID), ogroup (numeric what-group ID), and confirm (execute vs dry-run). proximo_target is described in schema. This compensates for the low coverage.

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 ('detach'), the resource ('what group from a PMG RuleDB rule'), and distinguishes it from siblings like attach and list tools. It also mentions the mutation type and the API path.

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 the dry-run default with confirm flag, prerequisite config, and the condition that only active rules are affected. It implies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like pmg_ruledb_rule_what_attach.

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