proxy_request

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

No annotations are available, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions token safety but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, idempotency, or side effects on the connection. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), more substance is needed. The structure is fine, but content is severely lacking.

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 tool has 8 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, expected input formats, or what the response looks like. It is grossly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). The tool description adds no explanation for any of the 8 parameters, including required ones like 'environment', 'provider_config_key', 'connection_id', 'method', and 'path'. The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 verb 'call', the resource 'provider API through the Nango Proxy', and the key benefit 'without exposing provider tokens'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with connections and integrations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring a valid connection, or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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