session_rotate_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the internal sequence (hit rotation endpoint, wait settle window, re-probe, realign identity), the default identity-realignment behavior, the precedence of caller-pinned fingerprint fields, what is returned, and the exact failure condition. This is substantial behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and generalized well, with each sentence carrying information. It is dense and slightly long, but no sentence is filler given the behavior it must convey without annotations.

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 noiseless, high-complexity mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description still supplies the behavioral, precedence, and failure-mode detail an agent needs. Return values are covered by the output schema, so its coverage of the remaining surface is complete.

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. It maps loosely to settle_seconds (the 'short settle window'), realign_identity ('by default re-aligns'), and probe (re-probing to confirm the new egress), but never names units, defaults, or the probe timeout parameter explicitly, leaving meaningful ambiguity for a 4-parameter tool.

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 (rotate) and resource (upstream exit IP for a session), and distinguishes itself from siblings like session_proxy_set/session_proxy_list by naming the exact precondition (proxy launched with rotation_url). An agent knows precisely what operation this performs.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use (session whose proxy has a rotation_url) and an explicit failure case (no proxy or no rotation_url). It does not name the alternative tool to use when those preconditions fail, so it stops short of a 5.

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