set_proxy_auto_renew

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

With no annotations provided, the description compensates by disclosing that it is a plain write with no immediate charge, that future auto-renewal will spend money, and the scope requirement. It does not cover all possible side effects (e.g., idempotency), but provides sufficient behavioral insight for a simple toggle.

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) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: action, scope, constraints, cost implication, and parameter source. No redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, scope, and cost. It explains the source of 'id' and the behavior of 'enabled'. Missing error conditions or validation details, but sufficient for a low-complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions already convey the parameter meanings. The description adds minimal value beyond restating 'id comes from list_proxies' and the toggle behavior, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Turn a proxy service's auto-renew on or off' and specifies 'ISP proxy services only', distinguishing it from sibling tool 'set_service_autorenew' for regular services. It also mentions the source of the 'id' parameter, making the action unambiguous.

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 states scope requirement ('services:write'), proxy type constraint ('ISP proxy services only'), and cost implications ('not gated, no charge happens now'). It implicitly advises against using for non-ISP proxies or regular services, though does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'set_service_autorenew'.

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