pmg_ruledb_rule_when_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation nature, medium side-effect, dry-run by default, execution with confirm=True, additive behavior, and the response structure for execution. This covers key behavioral aspects sufficiently.

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 very concise, using only 4 lines with clear front-loading of purpose and mutation flag. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the source of ogroup, default behavior, and execution details. Minor additions like explicitly stating id_ refers to rule ID are unnecessary as schema covers it. A bit more about prerequisites or side effects could be added, 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that ogroup comes from pmg_when_groups_list and explaining confirm behavior (dry-run vs execute). This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 'attach a when (timeframe) group to a PMG RuleDB rule', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pmg_ruledb_rule_when_detach and pmg_ruledb_rule_when_list by mentioning the source of ogroup and how to list current groups.

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 default, confirm=True execution, and that the operation is additive and only affects mail flow when rule is active. It also directs to pmg_when_groups_list for ogroup and pmg_ruledb_rule_when_list for current groups, providing good context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives.

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