attach_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether proxy mode must already be enabled, whether this mutates or replaces an existing proxy attachment, whether the path must be reachable, or how failures surface.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why behavioral context is thin.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it. It omits interaction with proxy mode and the create_proxy/toggle_proxy_mode workflow, which an agent would need to avoid mis-sequencing.

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%, with both nodeId and proxyPath documented in the schema. The description adds only the mild nuance that proxyPath must reference an existing file; it gives no format, path-resolution, or nodeId-selection 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Attach existing proxy media") plus the target ("a project item"). The word "existing" implicitly separates it from create_proxy, which generates proxy media rather than binding one, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: "existing proxy media" suggests the caller already has a proxy file on disk. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over create_proxy or toggle_proxy_mode, and no prerequisites are given.

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