set_proxy_auth_method

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a plain write (not gated), and explains the dependency on whitelisted IPs for 'ip' method. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but the disclosed info is substantial.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence is informative and contributes to understanding. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers prerequisites (scope, service type), usage pattern (check current method first), and behavioral notes. It references related tools (get_proxy_auth, list_proxies, add_proxy_whitelisted_ip) for full context.

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 100%, but the description adds value by noting that 'id' comes from list_proxies and that the 'method' enum has implications (e.g., 'ip' uses whitelisted IPs). This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('Switch'), the resource ('proxy service's authentication method'), and the valid values ('ip / password / combined'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_proxy_credentials and add_proxy_whitelisted_ip by specifying the context.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: requires scope 'services:write', applies only to ISP proxy services, and advises using get_proxy_auth first. Also notes that switching to 'ip' relies on add_proxy_whitelisted_ip entries, giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to.

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