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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the destructive full-replacement behavior, explains that omitted optional settings including authentication are cleared, and captures the non-obvious retain_password rule. It also tells the agent that returned configuration excludes passwords. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context that reduces mis-invocation.

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 short sentences and no filler. The full-replacement behavior is front-loaded, followed by the critical edge cases, and then the output behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich nested schema, existing annotations, and output schema, the description covers the important nuances: overwrite semantics, clearing of omitted values, password retention requirements, and password redaction. Nothing substantial that an agent needs in order to call the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the description gets no credit merely for repeating those fields. However, it does add cross-cutting meaning by stating that omitted optional settings are cleared and by summarizing the authentication retention rule, which is useful before an agent reads through the nested 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 states a specific verb and resource: it replaces the complete proxy configuration. The phrase 'complete proxy configuration' clearly distinguishes it from create_proxy, delete_proxy, or get_proxy, so an agent can identify the right tool 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?

The description makes clear that this is for full replacement of an existing proxy and flags the most important consequence: omitted optional settings are cleared. It does not explicitly name create_proxy or delete_proxy as alternatives, but the update-versus-create distinction is contextually clear enough for an agent to route between them.

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