Add proxies

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

Annotations are limited to openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: duplicates are detected and skipped silently, a 500-per-call limit, and that only three fields are required. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds useful information: the operation, the limit, required fields, and duplicate handling. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, limits, required fields, and duplicate behavior. It does not detail the return value or error handling, but for a create-like operation with a well-structured schema, this seems adequate. Sibling tools are differentiated, and the behavior is clearly scoped.

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 must compensate. It does mention the three required fields, which aligns with the schema, but it does not explain optional parameters or values like proxy_type enums. The schema itself contains descriptions for nested fields, so the description adds some value but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 tool's function: 'Save one or more proxies' with a specific verb (save) and resource (proxies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_proxies, update_proxy, and delete_proxy by focusing on adding new entries. The mention of 'max 500 per call' and duplicate handling further clarifies scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (adding proxies) and specifies required fields ('proxy_type / proxy_host / proxy_port are required') and a constraint (max 500). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the operation is straightforward and sibling tools are distinct in purpose.

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