Changes the IP address of a mobile proxy by invoking the configured IP change URL.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and non-idempotent nature are covered structurally. The description adds useful context about the required IP-change URL, but says nothing about expected latency, whether the new IP is returned, or failure behavior — a gap for an operation whose whole purpose is a side effect.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the precondition immediately after; nothing is padded. The lead-in 'This endpoint' is minor filler, but overall it is efficiently 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?

With no output schema and no annotations about results, the description should ideally state what the agent gets back (e.g., new IP, async status) and roughly how long the change takes. It covers the prerequisite but leaves the post-call expectations undefined for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (proxyId, workspaceId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only alludes to 'the specified mobile proxy' and never mentions workspaceId, so it adds no semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('triggers an IP change for the specified mobile proxy'), which is an action no sibling tool performs, so the agent can distinguish it immediately. The scope is bounded to mobile proxies and to a single named target.

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 provides one real prerequisite ('The proxy must have a valid IP change URL configured'), which is the key precondition for the call to succeed. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus other proxy tools (e.g., update_proxy) or what happens when the precondition is unmet, leaving usage only implied.

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