request_proxy_replacement

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: consumes allowance, requires specific scope, opens a support ticket, and is a plain write. It mentions server-side refusal if allowance depleted. Minor gap: does not describe immediate response (e.g., returns ticket ID?).

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?

Description is concise yet packs all necessary info. It is front-loaded with main action and consumption. Each sentence adds value. Could be structured with clearer separation of prerequisites and post-conditions.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: covers allowance, prerequisite check, scope, ISP restriction, and server-side behavior. Missing only immediate response details, but acceptable given simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with schema description matching the description. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra meaning. The description echoes that id comes from list_proxies, but that's already in 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 clearly states the tool requests an IP replacement for a proxy service, consuming a monthly allowance. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the need to check get_proxy_replacements first and mentions ISP-only limitation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (request IP replacement), when not to use (if no allowance remains), what to check first (get_proxy_replacements), and scope requirement (services:write). Also indicates it's ISP proxy only and that the request fails server-side if allowance used.

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