pmg_when_object_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the tool as a mutation, states irreversibility, describes the dry-run behavior, and outlines the response format for both dry-run and execution. However, it does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond irreversibility, which would push to a 5.

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 (4 lines) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and alternatives, making it easy to scan.

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 the tool (single delete operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers the action, irreversibility, dry-run, confirm behavior, source of parameters, and the alternative tool. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly invoke this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reinforces the dry-run context for the confirm parameter and notes the origin of id_. This is baseline level, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('timeframe object from a PMG RuleDB 'when' object group'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pmg_when_group_delete by explicitly stating the alternative for deleting the whole group. The dry-run default is also stated, leaving no 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?

The description explicitly says 'Dry-run by default' and explains that confirm=True executes the mutation. It also provides a clear when-not-to-use by naming pmg_when_group_delete as the alternative for deleting the entire group. The source of the id_ parameter is mentioned, guiding the user to the prerequisite call.

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