pmg_spam_config_update

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly covers behavioral traits: it's a mutation, dry-run by default, confirm flag, partial update (only non-None fields sent), delete parameter for resetting fields, immediate effect on new mail, and the API path. It omits idempotency but is otherwise strong.

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 compact (5 lines) and front-loaded, using brief sentences and bullet-like structure. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved with clearer separation of behavior, parameters, and prerequisites.

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 13 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description covers mutation behavior, dry-run, confirm, delete, and immediate effect. However, it lacks explanation of common parameters and prerequisites beyond the config variable, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is only 8%, so the description must compensate. It explains only two parameters (delete and confirm) in detail. The other 11 parameters are not described beyond the schema property names, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 it updates PMG spam filter configuration, using 'update' as the verb and 'PMG spam filter configuration' as the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., pmg_spam_config) by explicitly labeling as a mutation and mentioning dry-run/confirm behavior.

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 when to use (to update config), the dry-run default, and the need for confirm=True to execute. It also mentions required 'PROXIMO_PMG_*' config. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear. It could have named alternative tools for read access.

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