Modifies the configuration of an existing proxy server.

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the partial-update convention (null leaves properties unchanged), which is the key behavioral trait, but it does not explain what is destroyed, whether changes are reversible, or any auth/rate-limit constraints for a destructive write.

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 tight sentences with the value-add (null semantics) front and center after the purpose statement. The first sentence is largely a restatement of the title, which costs a point on efficiency.

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 six-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and null semantics, and the schema plus annotations carry the rest. It is adequate but silent on side effects of changing workspaceId/folderId and on what the call returns on success or failure.

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 every parameter, including the null-retention convention, is already documented in the schema. The description restates the null rule at a higher level but adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., what workspaceId=-1 implies for ownership or side effects) 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 ('modifies configuration') and resource ('an existing proxy server'), which cleanly separates it from create_proxy, delete_proxy, and bulk_delete_proxy in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead in a given situation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_profile_proxy, bulk_update_profile_proxy, or the folder/profile update tools. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as permissions or whether the proxy must be stopped before modification.

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