pmg_transport_create

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses that it's a mutation (LOW), dry-run behavior, return types (PLAN vs status), and that it overrides MX routing. Also notes additive nature and reverse tool.

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?

Very concise: 6 short sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With output schema existing, description adequately covers behavior, return types, prerequisites, and reversibility. Could mention that domain and host are required, but schema handles that. Sufficient for 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema for parameters; only mentions confirm for execution and config need which is not a parameter. No enhancement.

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?

Clearly states verb 'create' and resource 'mail transport rule', and distinguishes itself by mentioning it overrides MX-based routing for the domain. Sibling tool pmg_transport_delete is named as reverse, ensuring differentiation.

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?

Provides explicit usage pattern: dry-run by default, confirm to execute. Mentions prerequisite PROXIMO_PMG_* config and reversibility. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but overall context is clear.

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