pmg_ruledb_rule_when_detach

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation level (MEDIUM), dry-run behavior, and that it only affects mail flow if the rule is active. However, it lacks details on required permissions, error handling (e.g., if the when group doesn't exist), idempotency, and potential side effects.

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 compact yet informative, front-loading the mutation weight and action. Every sentence adds value: dry-run behavior, config requirement, API path, parameter mapping, and effect on mail flow. No wasted words.

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 (so return values are covered), the description adequately covers core behavior, prerequisites, and parameter usage. However, it omits edge cases like when the rule or when group does not exist, and does not specify the exact effect of the dry-run (e.g., what output to expect).

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 low (25%), but the description adds meaning for id_ and ogroup by explaining they are rule ID and numeric when-group ID. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's role (dry-run vs execute). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though could be more precise about expected formats.

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 a 'when' (timeframe) group from a PMG RuleDB rule. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_ruledb_rule_when_attach and other component detach tools (action, from, to, what) by specifying the exact target (when group) and providing 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?

Explicitly mentions dry-run default, confirm=True to execute, and the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* config. It also notes the effect only applies if the rule is active. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the sibling names and description make the context clear.

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