pmg_transport_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the tool as a mutation, describes the dry-run safeguard, the required config, and the consequence of deletion (fallback to MX lookup). This provides good transparency, though it could mention idempotency or deletion of non-existent domain behavior.

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 front-loaded with the mutation label and action, and is concise overall. It packs relevant details into a few lines, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 simplicity of a delete operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, the safety net, the config requirement, and the effect on mail routing. It could mention that the domain must exist, but otherwise is complete.

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 33%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond implying the domain from the path. The 'domain' and 'confirm' parameters are not described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning. Only 'proximo_target' has schema documentation. The description should add value here.

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 verb 'delete' and resource 'mail transport rule', and distinguishes from siblings like pmg_transport_create. It also mentions the dry-run default, which adds specificity.

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 (delete a transport rule), the safety mechanism (dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute), and the effect (fallback to default routing). It also notes configuration requirements. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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