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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotent, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: pausing/resuming clears `last_error` and its error history, and a resumed proxy is re-checked immediately, which can recover a proxy that was disabled after failure. That is meaningful side-effect disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then side effects, then the alternative path. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.

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 no output schema needed and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: mutation scope, destructive side effects on error history, immediate re-validation, and the workaround for unsupported edits. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not state: only `enabled` can change, framing `id` as the immutable resource reference. This meaningfully guides how the two parameters are used together.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Pause or resume a proxy'), which cleanly distinguishes it from create_proxy, delete_proxy, get_proxy, and list_proxies. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool to toggling `enabled` and routes the agent elsewhere for other needs ('To change the host, port or credentials, delete the proxy and add it again'), naming the delete/add alternative. No explicit when-not conditions beyond that, but the boundary is clear.

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