pmg_when_object_update

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

The description discloses that it is a mutation, dry-run by default, requires confirm=True to execute, and highlights that both start and end are required, with partial updates rejected (400). This adds significant value beyond the schema, especially since no annotations are provided.

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 informative and covers essential details in a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the mutation warning and purpose, but the structure could be improved by separating the usage note from the parameter details. No wasted sentences.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context to call the tool, including the API path and required parameter sources. Minor gap: missing format hints for start/end, but the path reference compensates.

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?

The description adds meaning to ogroup and id_ by explaining their sources (pmg_when_groups_list, pmg_when_group_objects). It also clarifies that start and end are both required, though the schema already marks them required. Schema coverage is low (17%), so the description partially compensates but does not specify format for start/end.

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 a timeframe object in a PMG RuleDB 'when' object group, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific object type and context.

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 the tool (to update a timeframe object) and provides guidance on dry-run and confirm. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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