proxy_add_custom_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description explains security restriction on stdio, optional activation, and parameter defaults. Could elaborate on duplicate name handling, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Concise one-line summary followed by structured Args list. Every sentence is informative with no 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?

Given 5 parameters and presence of output schema, description covers core functionality and constraints. Could mention error cases (e.g., duplicate name) or behavior when activate_now is false, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so description carries full burden. The Args block explains each parameter's purpose, allowed values (e.g., runtime only sse/http), and defaults, adding significant value.

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 registers a custom MCP server, distinguishing from sibling tools that handle activation or catalogue-based servers.

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?

Provides guidance on accepted runtimes (SSE/HTTP) and explicitly restricts stdio for security. Does not mention when to use alternatives like proxy_activate_from_spec, but context is clear.

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