pmg_who_object_update

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

Considering no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses dry-run default, confirm flag, config requirement, and parameter relationships (ogroup, type_, id_). However, it could mention idempotency or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and dry-run behavior. It is slightly verbose but well-structured, with each sentence adding value.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, with 13 parameters and low schema coverage, the description covers critical ones but lacks completeness for all optional fields.

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?

With only 8% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for ogroup, type_, id_, and notes that type-specific fields are optional. It does not explain all optional parameters (e.g., ip, cidr) 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: 'update an object in a PMG RuleDB ‘who’ object group'. It specifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_who_object_add and pmg_who_object_delete.

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 mentions dry-run and confirm behavior, and the required PROXIMO_PMG_* config, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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