extend_proxies

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which is consistent with extensions. The description adds the critical warning 'Spends real money,' which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also implies that proxies must already exist, but lacks details on failure modes or reversal.

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 short sentences deliver the core action and the most important risk warning. No fluff or repetition; the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description is too brief given the 3-parameter schema and absence of parameter explanations. It omits operational details like which provider to specify, where proxy IDs come from, and how period_days affects the extension. While an output schema exists, the tool still lacks context for safe selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0% with no descriptions for provider, proxy_ids, or period_days. The description clarifies that proxy_ids are IDs of existing proxies ('by their IDs'), but provider and period_days remain ambiguous. Provider's possible values and period_days' constraints are only found in 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Extend/renew existing proxies by their IDs.' The verb 'extend/renew' and resource 'existing proxies' specify exactly what the tool does, and the phrase 'by their IDs' distinguishes it from tools like buy_proxies that create new proxies.

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 alternatives such as buy_proxies or acquire_proxy. The description only states the operation and does not mention appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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