pmg_who_object_update

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: dry-run by default (safety), partial update (only non-None fields sent), confirm flag behavior, and return format for confirm=True. It also notes the mutation level 'MEDIUM'. This fully covers what an agent needs to know about side effects and safety.

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 three sentences long, each carrying essential information: core action and dry-run, key constraints, confirm behavior. No unnecessary words, and the structure is logical.

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 13 parameters and a mutation with dry-run, the description covers the core update logic well. It references sources for id_ but not for ogroup (though schema covers it). Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. Slight gap: could mention that dry-run returns a plan. Otherwise 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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'id_ comes from pmg_who_group_objects' and 'type_ must match the object's existing type', which are not in the schema. Also clarifies that 'only non-None fields are sent', affecting how update parameters work.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'object in a PMG RuleDB 'who' object group'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add and delete by specifying 'update'. The mention of 'dry-run by default' further clarifies the action.

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 provides context for usage: 'id_ comes from pmg_who_group_objects; type_ must match the object's existing type' and explains the dry-run and confirm behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pmg_who_object_add or pmg_who_object_delete), though it is implied by the name and purpose.

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