pmg_who_object_add

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run default, confirm flag, and the API path. However, it does not describe error behavior, idempotency, or what happens on success beyond the dry-run disclaimer. Moderate transparency for a mutation.

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 7 sentences, well-structured with a header, behavior, path, and parameter explanation. It is concise but includes necessary technical 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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters with low schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description covers type-specific fields well. However, it lacks information on error conditions, prerequisite checks beyond config, and relationship to other who tools. Adequate but could be more 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 8%, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining ogroup as a numeric ID from pmg_who_groups_list, type_ as a list of allowed values, and mapping type-specific fields (email, domain, regex, ip, cidr, mode, profile, group). It does not describe confirm or proximo_target, but these are self-explanatory or common.

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 explicitly states 'add an object to a PMG RuleDB 'who' object group.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pmg_who_object_delete and pmg_who_object_update. The inclusion of 'MUTATION (LOW)' clarifies the operation type.

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?

Provides clear context: to add objects to a 'who' group, dry-run by default, confirm=true to execute. Mentions needed config (PROXIMO_PMG_*) and references pmg_who_groups_list as source for ogroup. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives like update/delete tools.

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