manage_proxies

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose side effects and safety. It does not mention whether attaching a proxy modifies the project item, whether the operation is reversible, or any error or permission considerations. Only the action names are given, leaving behavioral characteristics undefined.

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 a single, compact sentence that directly lists the capabilities. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is a multi-action mutation endpoint (attach modifies state) with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain what each action returns, prerequisite conditions, or possible side effects. Such minimal coverage is inadequate given the complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, including the special condition for proxyPath. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not enhance it.

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 explicitly states the three actions (check, attach, get_path) and the target resource (project item). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes the tool's scope from other proxy-related tools like has_proxy and detach_proxy by covering all three operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative proxy tools (has_proxy, detach_proxy) or how to choose among the three actions. The description only lists capabilities without contextual hints about selection criteria.

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