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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses that the proxy is tested first, that failures leave the current proxy untouched, and that success releases any shared pool proxy. These are important side effects and atomicity guarantees an agent needs to reason about safely.

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, with the core action first, then the critical test-first behavior, then the success side effect and account lookup pointer. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral contract: preconditions (accountId lookup), failure mode, success side effects, and the scope of the change. It is slightly incomplete on optional proxy auth parameters and the success return shape, but an agent can confidently select and invoke the tool with the information given.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only explains accountId via the list_accounts pointer; host, port, username, and password are left to inference from the schema field names and types. The optional username/password authentication semantics deserve explicit mention.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Set (or replace) ... HTTP proxy on a LinkedIn account') and clearly differentiates the operation from sibling get/remove proxy tools. The 'bring-your-own' and 'private' qualifiers further pin down exactly what the tool manages.

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 gives clear practical guidance by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_accounts with platform 'linkedin' to find valid accountId values. It does not explicitly contrast with remove_private_proxy or get_private_proxy, but the set/replace framing and tested-proxy behavior make the appropriate context obvious.

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