rotate_proxy_session

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial detail: the current connection is dropped immediately, the old IP is released, the session ID and credentials remain stable, and no credentials are returned. This significantly exceeds annotation-only information.

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 compact and front-loaded with the MUTATING signal, then covers behavior, conditions, and return behavior in four tight sentences. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 fully covers action, timing, side effects, and the absence of credentials in the response. However, since there is no output schema, it leaves unspecified what the success response actually contains (e.g., a status, the new IP, or a result object).

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 100% and both parameters (product and session_id) already have clear descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description references session identity but adds no parameter-specific formatting or selection guidance 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?

The description opens with 'MUTATING: force an existing Evomi sticky session onto a new exit IP,' giving a specific action, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from read-style proxy tools by emphasizing the mutation and IP change.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when a session's IP has been blocked') and when not to call it ('Only call when the user asks to rotate or change IP — it disrupts anything currently using that session'). This is strong conditional guidance.

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