Deletes a proxy from the list by its identifier.

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the ID must match an existing proxy in the given workspace, which is useful context, but it says nothing about failure behavior or what happens to profiles bound to the deleted proxy.

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 that are front-loaded with the action and scope. It is slightly redundant, restating the 'by the specified ID' idea from the title, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 destructive delete tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource, the key parameter, and the existence precondition. It stops short of covering side effects (e.g., effect on profiles referencing the proxy) or error behavior, which a delete operation would benefit from.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's note that proxyId must exist in the specified workspace adds mild semantic value about the workspaceId relationship but no syntax or format detail 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 states a specific verb and resource ('deletes a proxy from the list by the specified ID'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling bulk_delete_proxy, leaving the agent to infer singular vs. bulk from the name alone.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives, even though bulk_delete_proxy and delete_proxy_folder sit in the same sibling set. The stated precondition ('must match an existing proxy') is a constraint, not usage routing.

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