Update proxy

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

The description discloses the partial-update behavior, which is key context. Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false) and a closed schema (openWorldHint=false). However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or requirements beyond the schema, so transparency is moderate.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and the critical usage detail, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 essential purpose and partial-update semantics, and annotations provide safety information. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values or error scenarios, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters, though adequate for a straightforward update operation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 22%, the description helps by clarifying that only provided fields are updated and the rest remain unchanged. It does not explain individual parameter meanings, but field names are largely self-explanatory, and the partial-update note adds value beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('partial update') and the resource ('saved proxy'), and the scope ('send only the fields to change') differentiates it from full replacement or deletion. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling proxy tools like delete_proxy or add_proxies.

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 phrase 'send only the fields to change' provides clear guidance that the tool is used for modifying an existing proxy without sending the entire object. It implies usage for updates to a saved proxy, though it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, making it clear but slightly incomplete.

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