App Config Proxy Access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, but says nothing about required permissions, reversibility of the toggle, what existing proxy state is overwritten, or side effects. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (app external proxy) leads and the write tag trails. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the tool's 6 parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an unannotated write tool with 6 parameters the description is thin on side effects and prerequisites, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (host, port, scheme, profile, app_name). The description adds nothing about the allow flag or app_name semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource: allowing/denying an app's external-network proxy access, and flags the write nature. It is distinguishable from the many app_config_* siblings (list, detail, set, wizard) which deal with general config, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over app_config_set, app_config_set_sys, or app_config_auth_paths, nor any prerequisites. The only implicit signal is the '(写操作)' tag, which marks it as a mutation but does not route the agent among alternatives.

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