add_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It fails to disclose key behaviors: whether it overwrites existing proxies, how the add/update decision is made, auth requirements, or return values. The text is essentially a restatement of the tool name without any side-effect context.

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 with no filler words or redundant information. It is maximally concise and front-loaded, conveying the essential action and resource without any wasted text.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, idempotency, or any operational context needed for safe invocation. The tool's complexity demands far more than a one-sentence summary.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantic insight, particularly regarding how proxy_id distinguishes add vs. update, but the schema's coverage warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 'Add or update SOCKS proxy preset' uses a clear verb and resource, explicitly covering both creation and modification. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_proxy and list_proxies by naming the specific operation on the proxy resource.

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 add_proxy vs. updating an existing proxy, nor any differentiation from other proxy or server tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites like having an existing server or proxy ID, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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