session_proxy_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — that the persisted form is always discrete fields and that a 'server' URL is decomposed at write — which is valuable non-obvious context. But it is silent on permissions/auth needs, what happens to omitted fields, and the semantics of the 'merge' flag, leaving meaningful gaps for an upsert.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action before the input-shape detail, and no filler. It is information-rich but the second sentence's inline field list makes it slightly heavy to parse; still efficient overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the dual input forms, the persisted representation, and the cross-tool referencing model well. The remaining gap is the merge/update-vs-overwrite behavior, which is central to an upsert tool and left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for the complex 'values' parameter by enumerating both accepted shapes and their fields. However, it adds nothing about 'merge' (default true, undocumented) and only gestures at 'proxy_name' by saying entries are referenced by name. Partial compensation, not full.

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 pair and resource ('Create or update a proxy registry entry'), which cleanly separates it from session_proxy_list, session_proxy_get, and session_proxy_delete. It also names the two accepted input shapes, so the agent knows exactly what kind of write this is before opening the schema.

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 implies usage by explaining that profiles and session_start reference entries via proxy_ref, which gives context for why one would create an entry. However, it never states when to use this versus session_rotate_proxy or session_set_fingerprint, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than declared.

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