proxy_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions token safety, but does not describe error handling, rate limits, pagination behavior, response format, or what happens on non-2xx statuses. For a proxy request tool that can perform arbitrary HTTP calls, this is a significant omission.

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 (a single sentence), but this comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is not structured to front-load the most important caveats or usage details. The brevity is negative here because the tool is complex with 15 parameters and no other documentation.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is drastically incomplete. An agent would need to know which parameters are required for various HTTP methods, how cursor and pageSize interact, the meaning of responseMode/responsePath, and the security implications of the connection. None of this is provided, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 15 parameters. Parameters like environment, providerConfigKey, responseMode, and cursor are cryptically named and entirely undefined. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to construct a valid request.

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 action ('Call a provider API through the Nango Proxy') and a key differentiator ('without exposing provider tokens'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on connection/integration management (e.g., get_connection, create_integration) by targeting direct API invocation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing connection), no comparison to related tools like get_connection or refresh_connection_credentials, and no exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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