create_proxy_request

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the required scope (services:write), that it's a plain write (not gated), and the GB Residential-only constraint. It omits return values and potential errors, but overall is fairly transparent.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds unique value (scope, constraints, parameter sources). No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers purpose, constraints, and parameter sourcing. It lacks information on the return value and error conditions, but is otherwise complete for a create tool.

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 schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), and the description adds valuable sourcing context (e.g., id from list_proxies, countryId from list_gb_residential_countries). This enhances meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies a concrete action (create a proxy-request) on a specific resource (GB Residential bucket), and distinguishes from ISP fixed-IP plans that use get_proxy_list. This differentiates among sibling tools effectively.

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?

It explicitly states when not to use this tool (ISP fixed-IP plans) and provides source endpoints for each parameter. However, it does not compare against other proxy-related siblings like order_proxy, leaving some ambiguity.

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