pmg_what_object_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature ('MUTATION (MEDIUM)'), the dry-run default, and the execution condition. It explains that only non-None fields are sent and others keep their current value, and describes the response format for execution. This provides adequate behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured. It starts with a bold label 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)' for quick scanning, then states the purpose, key constraints, and behavior. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact 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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers mutation type, dry-run default, execution, parameter constraints, and response format. It lacks prerequisites or error details, but for a tool with 12 parameters and an output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds global semantics: 'Only non-None fields are sent, others keep their current value.' It also reinforces the source of id_ and the constraint on type_ matching existing type, which adds meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 an object in a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group, with the verb 'update' and the resource 'object'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pmg_what_object_add' and 'pmg_what_object_delete' by its purpose. The mention of 'type_ must match the object's existing type' further clarifies the specific scope.

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 the default dry-run behavior and how to execute with confirm=True. It gives explicit guidance: 'id_ comes from pmg_what_group_objects; type_ must match the object's existing type.' It provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which is partially covered by sibling naming.

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