pmg_what_object_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly marks the tool as 'MUTATION (LOW)', describes dry-run default, execution with confirm=True, and immediate mail matching impact. However, it omits what the dry-run output format is (e.g., a plan), and lacks error behavior or idempotency details.

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?

Extremely concise: four sentences that each add unique value. The opening 'MUTATION (LOW)' immediately conveys safety, and subsequent sentences provide prerequisites, effects, and execution details without redundancy.

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 complexity (11 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral impact well. It does not describe the dry-run output format or error handling, but the presence of an output schema likely mitigates that. Still, for a mutation tool, it is notably 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 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal extra parameter context, only mentioning that ogroup comes from pmg_what_groups_list and listing type_ enum. It does not elaborate on the meaning or relationships of the other parameters beyond the schema.

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 ('add an object to a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group') and specifies it's a mutation with dry-run behavior. While it distinguishes from siblings like delete/update by the verb 'add', it does not explicitly contrast with them, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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?

Excellent guidance: instructs to create the group first with pmg_what_group_create, lists objects with pmg_what_group_objects, explains the effect when attached to a rule, and clarifies dry-run vs. execution with confirm=True. No gaps.

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