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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete folder' implies a destructive operation, but it fails to specify critical details such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to contents of the folder. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Delete folder', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per the scoring rules, it earns a high score for brevity and structure alone.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for safe or effective use, such as error handling, return values, or operational constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with potential side effects.

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 has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any semantic information about this parameter. It does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., folder name, identifier, path), its format, or constraints, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage unclear.

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 'Delete folder' restates the tool name 'delete_folders_folder' without adding specificity. It lacks details about what resource is being deleted (e.g., a folder in a particular system or context) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_share_folder__id_' or 'delete_workspaces__wid__profiles', which also involve deletion 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 alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for deleting a folder by name versus by ID (as in sibling tools like 'delete_share_folder__id_'), nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related operations like 'post_folders_folder' for creation or 'patch_folders_folder' for updates.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible (though 'get_deleted_profiles_v2' and 'post_deleted_profiles_restore' hint at recovery), requires specific permissions, or has side effects like cascading deletions.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context such as permanence, permissions, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 100%, with the parameter 'profilesToDelete' well-documented as an array of profile IDs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch deletion through 'multiple profiles', which aligns with the array type but doesn't provide extra value over 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 'Delete multiple profiles' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (profiles), with 'multiple' indicating batch capability. It distinguishes from single-delete siblings like 'delete_profile__id__web' by specifying multiplicity, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 like 'delete_profile__id__web' for single deletions or 'delete_workspaces__wid__profiles' for workspace-level deletions. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or recovery options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Stop' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose if this is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations and a vague action, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, short sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It fails to compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'id' represents or its format, leaving the single required parameter undocumented beyond its type 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 'Stop profile in the cloud' uses a verb ('Stop') and resource ('profile'), but it's vague about what 'Stop' means—does it delete, deactivate, or pause? It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'delete_profile' or 'delete_profile__id__web' (which appears to be a duplicate name issue), leaving ambiguity in its specific function.

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. With siblings like 'delete_profile' and 'delete_profile__id__web' (potentially similar), there's no indication of differences, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on context alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers only the word 'Delete.' This fails to communicate critical information: whether this is permanent or reversible deletion, what permissions are required, whether it affects dependent resources, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 maximally concise with just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the minimal information needed for safe and correct tool invocation, missing critical context about behavior, parameters, outcomes, and usage boundaries.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'id,' and the tool description provides no information about what this ID represents, its format, where to find it, or validation rules. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent completely in the dark about required input semantics.

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 'Delete proxy' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it clearly indicates a deletion action on a proxy resource, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'proxy' in this system or differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_profile' or 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_profile, delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_, etc.) and no indication of which resource type this applies to, what prerequisites exist, or when this specific deletion operation is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete folder share' implies a destructive operation, but it fails to specify permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient in terms of brevity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to provide necessary context such as parameter meaning, behavioral details, or usage guidelines, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly.

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 has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not mention parameters at all, offering no compensation for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about the meaning and format of the 'id' parameter.

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 'Delete folder share' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the action (delete) and resource (folder share), which is better than a tautology, but lacks specificity about what a 'folder share' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'delete_folders_folder'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but not well-differentiated from siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple delete-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_folders_folder', 'delete_workspaces__wid__profiles'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify if this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects the system. It lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or response format.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 destructive mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or what happens after removal. The context demands more completeness for safe and correct usage.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'tag' and 'profiles' but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter (likely tag ID) or 'browserIds' array (likely profile identifiers). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 'Remove tag from profiles' clearly states the action (remove) and target resource (tag from profiles), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_tags__tagId_' or 'post_tags_addToProfiles', but it's not vague or tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_tags__tagId_' (which might delete the tag entirely) or 'post_tags_addToProfiles' (which adds tags).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete tag' implies a destructive mutation, but it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., impact on associated profiles), or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to disclose critical behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with just two words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity, as it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness. Every word earns its place, but more content is needed for completeness.

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?

Given a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address usage context, parameter meaning, behavioral implications, or output expectations, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no information about the 'tagId' parameter. It does not explain what a tagId is, its format, how to obtain it, or validation rules. With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the bare 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 'Delete tag' restates the tool name 'delete_tags__tagId_' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'tag', but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, effect, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'delete_tags__id__removeFromProfiles'. The purpose is clear but minimal and redundant with the name.

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. Sibling tools include other deletion operations (e.g., 'delete_tags__id__removeFromProfiles'), but the description offers no context on differences, prerequisites, or appropriate scenarios. This leaves the agent without direction for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete workspace' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated resources (e.g., profiles, members), or has confirmation steps. This is inadequate for a high-stakes operation.

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 extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness for a destructive tool.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it safely or effectively.

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 schema only indicates a required 'wid' parameter of type string. The description adds no meaning beyond 'workspace'—it doesn't explain what 'wid' represents (e.g., workspace ID, name), its format, or where to find it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('workspace'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_' or 'delete_workspaces__wid__profiles', which also delete workspace-related entities but target different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., workspace must be empty), consequences, or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_' for removing members instead of the entire workspace.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove member from workspace,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the member's data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about critical behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence ('Remove member from workspace') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a delete operation in a workspace management context, this minimal description leaves too many open questions for safe and effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters (wid and id) undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'wid' (workspace ID) and 'id' (member ID) represent, their formats, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Remove member from workspace' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('member from workspace'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_workspaces__wid__ (which deletes entire workspaces) and patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_ (which likely modifies members). However, it doesn't explicitly specify that it's a deletion operation vs. other removal types, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing workspace admin permissions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_ (which might update member roles) or post_workspaces__wid__members (which likely adds members). This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects (permanence, permissions, side effects) or provide sufficient parameter context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 mentions 'profiles' and 'workspace' which map to the two parameters (wid, profiles), but provides no additional meaning about what these parameters represent, their format, or constraints. The description doesn't explain that 'wid' is workspace ID or that 'profiles' is an array of profile identifiers.

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 'Delete multiple profiles in workspace' clearly states the action (delete), target resource (profiles), and scope (multiple, in workspace). It distinguishes from sibling 'delete_profile' which appears to delete single profiles, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other workspace-related delete tools like 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling delete tools (delete_profile, delete_profile__id__web, delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_) but no indication of when this batch deletion tool is preferred over single deletion tools or other workspace operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get list'), but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (suggested by 'offset' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data the list includes (e.g., metadata vs. full profiles). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get list of deleted profiles'). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth), parameter meanings, and output details, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation despite its conciseness.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain 'currentWorkspace' (optional string) or 'offset' (required number), leaving their purposes (e.g., workspace filtering, pagination start) undocumented. This fails to address the coverage gap.

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 'Get list of deleted profiles' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('deleted profiles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_profile_v2' (active profiles) by specifying 'deleted' profiles, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'post_deleted_profiles_restore' (restoration tool).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace context), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_profile_v2' for active profiles or 'post_deleted_profiles_restore' for restoration, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all folders' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how data is returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 'Get all folders' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just three words that directly convey the core action. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of effective minimalism for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like read-only nature, return format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add or contradict parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 'Get all folders' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('folders'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'all' entails (e.g., scope, filtering) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_workspaces' or 'get_tags_all', which could have similar list operations. It's not tautological but remains vague.

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. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it retrieves only active folders or includes deleted ones. With many sibling tools for different resources, the lack of comparative guidance leaves usage unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Get a random fingerprint') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what 'random' entails (e.g., selection criteria, distribution). The description is minimal and does not disclose key operational traits.

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 extremely concise ('Get a random fingerprint')—a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently states the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a fingerprint is, how parameters affect the result, or what the tool returns. For a tool with multiple inputs and no structured guidance, this minimal description is inadequate for effective use.

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 mentions 'random fingerprint' but does not explain any parameters (currentWorkspace, os, osSpec, template) or their roles in generating the fingerprint. With 4 parameters (2 required) and no parameter information in the description, it fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 'Get a random fingerprint' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('fingerprint'), but is vague about what a 'fingerprint' means in this context (e.g., browser fingerprint, user profile fingerprint). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'random', but lacks clarity on the resource's nature. This is borderline tautological as 'get' echoes the tool name's 'get_' prefix.

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. Sibling tools include various profile-related tools (e.g., get_profile_v2, get_profile__id_), but the description does not explain when to fetch a random fingerprint versus retrieving specific profiles or other data. Usage context is implied only by the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get profile by id' only indicates a read operation without detailing authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's action, but it lacks necessary elaboration for a complete tool definition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly, what to expect in return, or how it fits among siblings. The minimal information fails to meet the needs for effective tool usage.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither 'currentWorkspace' nor 'id' are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying an 'id' is needed, failing to explain what 'currentWorkspace' does, the format of 'id', or any constraints. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Get profile by id' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_profile__id_' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'profile', but lacks any distinguishing details about what a 'profile' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_profile_v2' or 'get_profile_fingerprint'. The purpose is stated but remains vague without context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_profile_v2', 'get_profile_fingerprint', and 'get_profile__id__cookies', there is no indication of when this specific 'get_profile__id_' is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions. Usage is implied solely by the name, offering no practical help for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find cookies of profile' suggests a read-only operation but does not specify if it requires authentication, returns all cookies or a subset, includes metadata (e.g., expiration dates), or handles errors (e.g., invalid profile IDs). It lacks details on rate limits, data format, or any side effects, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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 'Find cookies of profile' is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. While brevity risks underspecification, every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's intent without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving profile data retrieval), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is highly incomplete. It does not address what 'cookies' entail, the return format, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool that likely interacts with sensitive data (cookies), this minimal description is inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 has 1 required parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not add any parameter details—it does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., a profile identifier, numeric vs. string format) or how it relates to finding cookies. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Find cookies of profile' clearly states the action (find) and resource (cookies of profile), establishing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'cookies' refers to (e.g., browser cookies, authentication tokens) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_profile__id_' or 'get_profile_v2', which might retrieve other profile data. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profile ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_profile__id_' (which might retrieve general profile info) or 'post_profile__id__cookies' (which might add cookies). Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit context or recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers no information beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or any rate limits or side effects, making it inadequate for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Get latest useragent', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this brevity contributes to efficiency, it comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter with an enum but no schema descriptions), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'useragent' is, how it relates to profiles, what the output contains, or any behavioral context, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds no semantic information about the 'os' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'os' stands for, how the enum values map to operating systems, or why this parameter is required, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get latest useragent' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_profile_latest_useragent' without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('latest useragent'), but doesn't clarify what a 'useragent' refers to in this system or how it relates to profiles, making it vague rather than specific.

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. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_profile__id__' or 'get_profile_v2' that might handle related functionality, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Get all profiles' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., paginated, filtered), what permissions are required, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters that presumably supports complex queries, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks necessary structure—it doesn't front-load key information about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious, nor does it provide any context about parameters, behavior, or usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters with enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'profiles' are in this context, how results are structured, what filtering/sorting/pagination options exist via parameters, or how this differs from sibling profile retrieval tools. For a multi-parameter query tool, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 description provides zero information about any of the 6 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. Parameters like 'folder', 'search', 'tag', 'sorterField', 'sorterOrder', and 'page' are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their purpose, format, and usage ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Get all profiles' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_profile_v2' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_profile__id_' (get single profile) or 'get_deleted_profiles_v2' (get deleted profiles), nor does it specify what kind of profiles or what 'all' means in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving profiles (e.g., 'get_profile__id_' for single profiles, 'get_deleted_profiles_v2' for deleted ones, 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles' for workspace-specific profiles), the description fails to indicate when this bulk retrieval tool is appropriate versus more targeted options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find proxy by id' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the proxy isn't found. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely.

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 very concise with just three words, which is front-loaded and efficient. However, it borders on under-specification, as it could benefit from slightly more detail to clarify purpose without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and one parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or usage context, making it inadequate for a tool that likely retrieves sensitive proxy data.

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%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning by implying 'id' is used to find a proxy, but it doesn't specify the format (e.g., string type, expected values) or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Find proxy by id' clearly states the action (find) and resource (proxy), but it's vague about what 'find' means—does it retrieve details, check existence, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_proxy_v2' or 'get_proxy_shared', which might have different scopes or filters.

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. With siblings like 'get_proxy_v2' and 'get_proxy_shared', there's no indication of differences in context, such as whether this is for a specific proxy lookup versus bulk retrieval or shared proxies.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what format the list returns. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what 'shared proxies' entails, how results are structured, or behavioral details. With no annotations to supplement, the description should provide more operational guidance to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion about parameters.

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 'Get list of shared proxies' clearly states the action (Get list) and resource (shared proxies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_proxy__id_' (single proxy) and 'get_proxy_v2' (general proxies), though not explicitly. However, it lacks specificity about what 'shared' means in this context.

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 like 'get_proxy_v2' or 'get_users_proxies_geolocation_traffic'. The description implies it retrieves shared proxies but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for its use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get list of all proxies' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by the 'page' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' encompasses (e.g., scope, filters). This is inadequate for a tool with a parameter and no annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple statement.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination behavior, response format, error conditions, and usage context. For a list operation with a parameter, this minimal description doesn't provide enough information for effective tool use.

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 mentions 'list of all proxies' but provides no information about the 'page' parameter (e.g., its purpose, format, default value, or how pagination works). This leaves a key parameter undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 'Get list of all proxies' clearly states the action (get) and resource (proxies), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_proxy__id_' (single proxy) and 'get_proxy_shared' (shared proxies). However, it doesn't specify what 'all' means in context (e.g., all accessible proxies vs. all in system).

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 like 'get_proxy__id_' for a specific proxy or 'get_proxy_shared' for shared proxies. The description mentions 'all proxies' but doesn't clarify if this includes deleted, inactive, or workspace-specific proxies, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses nothing about behavior—no mention of permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. It fails to add any context beyond the basic action implied by 'Get'.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted text. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication, though it is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It lacks purpose clarity, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, failing to provide necessary context for effective tool use.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. The single parameter 'workspace' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.

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 'Get all tags' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'tags' but lacks detail on scope or format, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_tags_search'.

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 'get_tags_search'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, what authentication is needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Search for particular tags', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it may be too brief for full understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'search' entails, how results are returned, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description implies a search operation but doesn't specify parameters like query terms or filters. Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description could better clarify if parameters are implicit or if this is a fixed search.

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 'Search for particular tags' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('tags'), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'search' operation. It doesn't specify whether this searches by name, ID, or other criteria, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_tags_all' which presumably retrieves all tags without filtering.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_tags_all' and 'post_tags_addToProfiles', the description doesn't clarify if this is for filtered retrieval, exact matching, or another purpose, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it returns current user vs all users, what format the response takes, or any rate limits or constraints. 'Get user info' is too vague to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information - it's too brief to be helpful. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, which this lacks.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'user info' means, how it differs from profile tools, what the return format is, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, the baseline for this situation is 4 since there are no parameters to explain.

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 'Get user info' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_user'. It doesn't specify what kind of user information is retrieved, from what context, or for what purpose. While it indicates a read operation ('get'), it lacks specificity about the resource scope or content.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_profile__id_', 'get_profile_v2', and 'get_workspaces__wid__members__id_', there's no indication of how 'get_user' differs from these other user/profile retrieval tools or what specific use case it serves.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or data format. It doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (implied by proxy traffic data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'used traffic data' includes, how it's returned, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for such cases.

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 ('Get') and resource ('used traffic data of gologin proxies'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_proxy_v2' or 'get_proxy_shared', which might also retrieve proxy-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 'get_proxy_v2' or 'get_proxy_shared'. The description lacks context about specific use cases or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all workspaces' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., list, paginated), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, sorting). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 'Get all workspaces' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, leaving no wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, authentication, or error handling. For a basic read operation, it's passable but could be more informative to fully guide the agent without relying on external context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. It meets the baseline for tools with no parameters by not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 'Get all workspaces' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspaces__wid__' (which gets a specific workspace) by implying retrieval of all items rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations like 'get_folders' or 'get_tags_all', leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for retrieving all workspaces, or compare it to related tools like 'get_workspaces__wid__' for single workspace retrieval or 'post_workspaces' for creation. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get workspace info' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or whether it returns partial/full workspace data. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone measure, it's perfectly structured without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'workspace info' includes, how to interpret the 'wid' parameter, or what the return value looks like. For a tool with one required parameter and no structured documentation, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 doesn't mention the 'wid' parameter at all, leaving its meaning (e.g., workspace ID), format, or constraints undocumented. With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the bare 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 'Get workspace info' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace info'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspaces' (plural) by implying single workspace retrieval, but doesn't specify what 'info' includes.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter 'wid' suggests retrieving a specific workspace, there's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_workspaces' (list all workspaces) or 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles' (get profiles within a workspace).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all profiles' but doesn't clarify if this is a paginated list, what the response format is, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get all profiles in workspace'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word earns its place, but more content is needed for completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'profiles' are, how results are returned, or how to use filtering/sorting parameters. For a list operation with rich input options, this leaves too much unsaid for effective agent use.

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 but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters, leaving all 10 (including complex ones like 'sortField' with enums, 'offset', 'page', 'search', 'tag') undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 'Get all profiles in workspace' clearly states the action (get) and resource (profiles in workspace), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles_count' or 'get_profile_v2'. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all profiles at once or with pagination, leaving ambiguity.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_profile_v2', 'get_deleted_profiles_v2', and 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles_count', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get profiles count' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what 'count' entails (e.g., total, active, filtered). It lacks details on response format, error handling, or any side effects, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise with 'Get profiles count', a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return, failing to bridge the gaps in structured data.

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%, with one required parameter 'wid' undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'wid' represents (e.g., workspace ID) or how it affects the count. With low coverage and no parameter details, it doesn't compensate for the schema's deficiencies.

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 'Get profiles count' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'profiles count', but lacks detail on what 'profiles' refers to or the scope (e.g., within a workspace). Compared to siblings like 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond counting versus listing profiles.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as why one would choose this over 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles' for counting profiles. The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add or remove profiles' implies mutation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to profiles already in the folder, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavioral nuances needing explanation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required. Given the tool modifies folder contents (potentially affecting multiple profiles), more behavioral context is needed despite the concise description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'profiles' and implies 'action' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Add or remove') and resource ('profiles from folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'post_folders_folder' or 'delete_folders_folder', which likely have related but distinct functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'post_folders_folder' (likely creates folders), 'delete_folders_folder' (deletes folders), and various profile management tools, there's no indication of when this specific modification tool is appropriate versus creating new folders or using other profile operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is a partial or complete update, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or how errors are handled. It lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool affecting multiple profiles.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and comprehensive schema, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing contextual information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally (replace vs merge), what happens to existing bookmarks not mentioned, whether all three bookmark categories must be provided, or what the response contains. The complexity of nested objects and multi-profile updates demands more guidance than provided.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the structure of bookmarks objects, the meaning of profileIds, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('bookmarks for multiple profiles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other patch_profile_* tools by specifying it handles bookmarks specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar bookmark-related tools if they exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like patch_profile_name_many or patch_profile_proxy_many_v2. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention whether this is an additive/replacement operation, if changes are reversible, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, or what happens to extensions not mentioned in the parameters. For a mutation tool affecting multiple profiles, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted verbiage or redundant explanations.

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 mutation tool affecting multiple profiles with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled with multiple profiles, whether operations are atomic, or what validation occurs. The combination of mutation complexity and missing structured documentation requires more descriptive context than provided.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Update') and target resource ('chrome extensions for multiple profiles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_profile_bookmarks_many' or 'patch_profile_name_many', but the resource specificity (chrome extensions vs bookmarks/names) provides implicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to upload custom extensions first), compare with single-profile update tools if they exist, or specify appropriate contexts for batch updates versus individual operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh profile fingerprint' implies a mutation operation (updating fingerprint data), but it doesn't specify what gets updated, whether this requires special permissions, what the expected outcome is, or any side effects. The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the single phrase), it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'refreshing' entails, what data gets updated, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by 'fingerprint' operations and the lack of structured documentation, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective tool use.

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 description provides no parameter information, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter 'browsersIds' documented as 'Array of profile IDs that you want to update.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add any value beyond what's already 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 'Refresh profile fingerprint' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'patch_profile_fingerprints' without providing meaningful clarification. It uses the vague verb 'refresh' without specifying what a 'profile fingerprint' is or what the refresh operation actually does, making it difficult to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_profile_fingerprint' or understand its specific purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile_fingerprint' (which likely retrieves fingerprint data) or other patch operations. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like what 'names' refers to, how profiles are identified, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could hint at expected input format (e.g., batch data). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 ('Update') and resource ('multiple profiles names'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like patch_profile_bookmarks_many or patch_profile_proxy_many_v2, which also update multiple profiles but target different attributes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other profile update tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to partially successful updates, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it differs from similar patch operations. Given the complexity of bulk proxy updates, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'proxies' and its nested structure. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Update proxy for multiple profiles' clearly states the action (update) and target (proxy for multiple profiles). It distinguishes from single-profile operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other patch_profile_* tools like patch_profile_name_many or patch_profile_bookmarks_many.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_profile_update_ua_to_new_browser_v or put_profile__id__custom. The description implies bulk proxy updates but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing user agents. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the update entails (e.g., to what new browser version), success/failure behavior, or return values. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential side effects, more context is needed.

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 75%, providing good documentation for parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already explains browserIds, updateAllProfiles, and updateUaToNewBrowserV. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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 'Update user agent of profile' clearly states the action (update) and target (user agent of profile), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_profile_fingerprints' or 'patch_profile_name_many' that also update profile attributes. It specifies what is being updated but not how or why.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling patch_profile_* tools available, there's no indication of when this specific user-agent update is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens to existing permissions not mentioned.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, 60% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 60%, with parameters like 'folders' and 'role' having descriptions, but 'id' and 'wid' lack them. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, such as how 'limitedAccess' interacts with 'folders'.

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 'Update member permissions' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('member permissions'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'patch_workspaces__wid__rename' or 'post_workspaces__wid__members'. It specifies what is being updated but lacks detail about the workspace context implied by the tool name.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing workspace and member, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_' or 'post_workspaces__wid__members'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename workspace' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just two words, front-loading the core action and resource with zero wasted language. This efficiency makes it easy to parse, though it trades brevity for completeness.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity of modifying workspace names, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 50% (only 'name' parameter has a description). The description 'Rename workspace' implies both 'wid' (workspace ID) and 'name' (new name) parameters but doesn't add details beyond what the schema provides. It compensates slightly by clarifying the tool's purpose, but doesn't fully address the undocumented 'wid' parameter.

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 'Rename workspace' clearly states the verb ('Rename') and resource ('workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_' or 'patch_profile_name_many', which also modify workspace or profile names, leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific rename operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing workspace ID), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'patch_profile_name_many' for profile renaming. This lack of context could lead to misuse in complex scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what side effects occur, or how the streaming response behaves. The description fails to provide any behavioral context.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information and doesn't front-load any meaningful context about the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it returns, failing to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (messages array and stream boolean). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'POST /ai/chat/stream' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It provides no verb or resource context, making it impossible to distinguish this tool from its many sibling POST tools on the server.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with other tools, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Restore' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether restoration is reversible, what happens if profiles are already restored, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 maximally concise at just two words, front-loading the essential action and object. There's zero wasted language, making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the core function.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like success/failure conditions, error handling, response format, or system state changes. The combination of a write operation with minimal description creates significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or relationships between profileIds and workspaceId. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Restore deleted profiles' clearly states the verb ('restore') and resource ('deleted profiles'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools, but since there's only one 'restore' tool among many 'delete' and 'get' operations, the purpose is sufficiently clear without explicit sibling comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that profiles must be in a deleted state), no indication of when restoration might fail, and no reference to sibling tools like 'get_deleted_profiles_v2' that might logically precede this operation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create folder' implies a write operation that likely requires specific permissions and may have side effects (e.g., folder hierarchy implications), but the description doesn't mention any of this. It also doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action ('Create folder'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, which are critical for safe invocation. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for using this tool is underspecified, especially compared to sibling tools that might interact with folders.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name'. The schema already describes it as 'Name of the folder.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value (e.g., by explaining naming constraints or examples).

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 'Create folder' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_folders_folder' or 'patch_folders_folder' by focusing on creation rather than deletion or modification. However, it doesn't specify what kind of folder (e.g., in what system or context), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like required permissions), when creation is appropriate versus using existing folders, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'post_workspaces' (which might create workspace folders). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Import profiles' suggests a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this creates or overwrites data, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this is critically inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful.

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?

Given a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 33% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'profiles' are in this context, what the import process entails, what happens to existing data, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools. For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 only 33% (only 'dataProfiles' has a description). The tool description 'Import profiles' adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain what 'currentWorkspace' or 'folderName' mean, what format 'dataProfiles' expects beyond 'CSV file content', or how parameters interact. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 'Import profiles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post_profile_browser_import'. It specifies the verb 'import' and resource 'profiles', but lacks any detail about what 'profiles' are, what format they're in, or what 'browser_import' entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'post_profile_browsers_csv' or 'post_profile_custom', it doesn't distinguish its specific purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for profile operations (e.g., 'post_profile_browsers_csv', 'post_profile_custom', 'post_profile_quick'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific import tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools should be used instead.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Export profiles' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies data, what permissions are required, what format the output takes (CSV is implied in the name but not confirmed), or any rate limits or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation implications.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than representing efficient communication. The structure is simple but under-specified.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the parameters mean. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 only 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description 'Export profiles' adds no information about either parameter. It doesn't explain what 'browsersIds' represents, what format they should be in, or what 'currentWorkspace' is used for. The description fails to compensate for the schema's incomplete documentation.

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 'Export profiles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post_profile_browsers_csv' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'export' means in this context (CSV format? data structure?), what 'profiles' refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'post_profile_browser_import' or 'post_profile_clone_multi'.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools that handle profile operations like import, clone, and transfer, there's no indication whether this is for backup, migration, analysis, or other purposes. The agent receives no contextual cues about appropriate use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clone multiple profiles' implies a write operation (creation of copies), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like (e.g., new profile IDs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—just three words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. For conciseness alone, it's optimal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cloning multiple profiles, a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavior, output, error cases, or differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely creates new resources, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (browsersIds and folderName). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Clone multiple profiles' clearly states the action (clone) and resource (profiles), but it's vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify what 'profiles' are (browser profiles?), what cloning entails (duplication with new IDs?), or how it differs from sibling tools like post_profile_quick or post_profile_custom. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for profile operations (e.g., post_profile_quick, post_profile_custom, patch_profile_name_many), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or trade-offs. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create profile' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response contains. It mentions 'partial parameters' but doesn't explain defaults or required fields. For a complex creation tool with 26 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at four words, with zero wasted text. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Create profile') and adds a clarifying constraint ('with partial parameters'). Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (26 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this system, the scope of creation, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a creation tool with many configurable aspects, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively beyond parsing the schema.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'partial parameters', implying that inputs are optional, but the schema already indicates 0 required parameters and 85% description coverage. The description doesn't clarify parameter relationships, dependencies, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights but doesn't detract either.

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 'Create profile with partial parameters' states the action (create) and resource (profile) but is vague about what a 'profile' entails in this context. It mentions 'partial parameters' which hints at optional inputs but doesn't clarify the tool's specific purpose compared to siblings like 'post_profile_quick' or 'post_profile_browser_import'. This is borderline tautological as it mostly restates the name 'post_profile_custom'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for profile creation and management (e.g., 'post_profile_quick', 'post_profile_browser_import', 'post_profile_clone_multi'), there is no indication of when this custom creation tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other methods. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing cookies), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool that modifies data.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Update cookies for profile', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cookies' refer to in this context, how the update works, what the expected outcome is, or handle the undocumented parameters, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'cleanCookies' or 'fromUser', failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves all parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Update cookies for profile' clearly states the action (update) and target resource (cookies for profile), but it's vague about what 'update' entails—does it replace, add, or modify cookies? It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile__id__cookies' (which likely retrieves cookies) or other profile-related tools, leaving ambiguity in its specific role.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for setting initial cookies, refreshing them, or handling authentication, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'post_profile__id__web' that might relate to web interactions. The lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects occur (e.g., starting a cloud session, consuming resources), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The verb 'run' implies an action but lacks detail on outcomes or risks.

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 concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential details, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful summary.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'run' in a cloud context, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage for the parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective tool 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'id' parameter. It does not explain what the ID refers to (e.g., a profile identifier), its format, or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage completely undocumented.

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 'Run profile in the cloud' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'post_profile__id__web' without specifying what 'run' means in this context (e.g., execute, launch, or activate a profile). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'post_profile_quick' or 'post_profile_custom', which likely involve similar actions on profiles.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the profile must exist or be in a specific state, and does not mention any sibling tools as alternatives or complementary actions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create profile' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. The phrase 'with templates' hints at some constraint but doesn't explain it. Significant gaps exist for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create profile') and adds a modifier ('with templates'). While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured—every word serves a purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (creating profiles) with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter guidance (description adds no value beyond schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'templates' are, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a 4-parameter tool in a complex domain with many siblings, this leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'currentWorkspace' does, clarify the relationship between 'os' and 'osSpec', or define what 'templates' refers to. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 'Create profile with templates' states the action (create) and resource (profile) but is vague about what 'with templates' means. It doesn't specify what kind of profile or what templates are involved, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'post_profile_custom' or 'post_profile_browser_import'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for profile creation (post_profile_custom, post_profile_browser_import, post_profile_clone_multi), there's no indication of when this 'quick' template-based approach is appropriate versus other methods. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects, which are critical for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Create multiple proxies', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient though potentially under-specified.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, one being a nested array of proxy objects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the input structure, expected behavior, or output, leaving significant gaps for a tool that creates multiple entities with detailed configurations.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description 'Create multiple proxies' mentions 'proxies' but doesn't explain what parameters are needed (e.g., host, port, mode) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely undefined.

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 'Create multiple proxies' clearly states the action (create) and resource (proxies), but it's vague about what 'proxies' are in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'post_proxy_delete_proxies' or 'post_users_proxies_mobile_proxy'. It specifies 'multiple' which adds some scope information.

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 like 'post_users_proxies_mobile_proxy' or 'post_proxy_delete_proxies'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete multiple proxies' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, how errors are handled for partial failures, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Extremely concise with 'Delete multiple proxies' - three words that directly convey the core action. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness for a destructive tool.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'proxies' are, deletion consequences, error handling, permissions, or return values. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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%, with one parameter 'proxies' (array of strings) undocumented in schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'proxies' refers to multiple proxy items to delete, but doesn't specify what the strings represent (e.g., IDs, names, URLs), format, constraints, or if all must exist. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key details unclear.

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 'Delete multiple proxies' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (proxies), with 'multiple' indicating batch operation. It distinguishes from sibling 'delete_proxy__id_' which appears to delete a single proxy by ID. However, it doesn't specify what 'proxies' refers to (e.g., proxy configurations, proxy instances).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_proxy__id_' for single deletions or other deletion tools for different resources. The description implies batch deletion but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when batch deletion is appropriate versus individual deletions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create multiple shares' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what happens on partial failures, whether shares are revocable, or what the response contains. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just two words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.

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?

Given this is a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'shares' are in this context, what permissions are required, what happens when sharing fails for some instances, or what the tool returns. The combination of mutation behavior, batch operations, and lack of structured documentation requires more descriptive context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create multiple shares' clearly states the action (create) and resource (shares), with 'multiple' indicating batch capability. However, it doesn't specify what type of resources are being shared (profiles/folders) or distinguish from sibling tools like 'post_workspaces__wid__members' which also creates shares. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with similar tools like 'post_workspaces__wid__members' (which shares workspace access). There's no indication of when batch sharing is preferred over single operations or what permissions are required.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add tag to profiles' implies a mutation operation but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior safely.

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 extremely concise—a single three-word phrase—which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it lacks necessary detail, but within the dimension of conciseness, it scores well for being direct and structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without essential context on usage, behavior, parameters, or outcomes.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about parameters like 'browserIds', 'color', 'field', 'title', or 'workspace', failing to explain their purposes, formats, or relationships. This leaves all parameters undocumented and unclear.

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 'Add tag to profiles' states the basic action but is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'post_tags_addToProfiles'. It does not specify what 'profiles' refer to (e.g., user profiles, browser profiles) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'post_tags__id_' or 'delete_tags__id__removeFromProfiles', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'delete_tags__id__removeFromProfiles' for removing tags, there is no indication of when to choose addition over removal or other related operations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update tag' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data, leaving the agent with no insight into its behavior beyond the basic action.

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?

While concise with two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks structure and doesn't front-load critical information, offering no value beyond the tool name. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to provide necessary context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required, mutation operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'id', 'title', 'color', 'workspace', or 'field' represent or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess based on property names alone.

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 'Update tag' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'post_tags__id_' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'update' and resource 'tag' but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'post_tags_addToProfiles' or 'delete_tags__id__removeFromProfiles', nor does it specify what aspects of a tag are updated.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with multiple sibling tools for tags (e.g., 'get_tags_all', 'delete_tags__tagId_'), there's no indication of how this update operation fits into the broader workflow.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create dev token' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what the tool returns. It lacks details on whether this is a safe operation or has destructive potential, which is critical for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Create dev token,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It efficiently states the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity.

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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a dev token is, its purpose, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Name of the dev token.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3. No additional context or examples are provided in the description.

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 'Create dev token' states the action (create) and resource (dev token), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'dev token' is used for and doesn't distinguish this tool from other creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., post_profile_custom, post_workspaces). It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for creating resources (e.g., profiles, workspaces), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' but doesn't specify whether this is a write operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the concise phrasing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as it doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Create') and resource ('gologin high quality proxy'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_proxy_add_proxies' or 'post_proxy_delete_proxies', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'post_proxy_add_proxies' or other proxy-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create workspace' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 maximally concise with just two words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately for such a simple description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'workspace' represents in this system, what happens after creation, whether there are limitations or quotas, or what the response contains. The combination of mutation operation + zero annotation coverage requires more descriptive context than provided.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and enum values. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description adds no additional semantic context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 ('Create') and resource ('workspace'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'post_workspaces__wid__members' or 'post_workspaces__wid__profiles_transfer', which also create workspace-related resources but with different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools in the sibling list, or any contextual constraints for workspace creation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate emails, error conditions, or response format. 'Add' implies mutation but lacks safety/constraint context.

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, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter semantics, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'wid', 'emails', 'role', 'limitedAccess', 'folders', or 'workspaceName' mean or how they interact, leaving all 6 parameters semantically undocumented.

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 'Add member to workspace' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (member to workspace). It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_' which likely updates existing members.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to related tools like 'post_workspaces' (create workspace) or 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_' (remove member).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Transfer profile' implies a mutation operation that moves profiles between instances or users, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the transfer is reversible, what happens to the source profile after transfer, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation name.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While there's no wasted language, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this system, what the transfer operation actually does, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description 'Transfer profile' adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'wid', 'toEmail', and 'instanceIds', or provide context about what constitutes valid instance IDs or email addresses.

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 'Transfer profile' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'profile' means in this context, what resource is being transferred, or what the transfer operation entails. While it includes a verb ('Transfer') and a resource ('profile'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'post_profile_clone_multi' or 'post_deleted_profiles_restore'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various profile-related operations (clone, restore, delete), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about when this specific transfer operation is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens to unspecified parameters (are they preserved or reset?), whether the update is atomic, or what the response contains. For a complex mutation tool with 27 parameters, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update profile') and adds a qualifying detail ('with partial parameters'). There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a tool with extensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate if the description were more informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (27 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' is in this context (browser profile), what 'partial' updates mean operationally, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with such rich parameter structure, the description should provide more context about the update semantics and expected behavior.

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 81%, which is high, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'partial parameters,' suggesting that not all parameters need to be specified. However, it doesn't clarify which parameters are optional versus required beyond the schema's 'id' requirement, nor does it explain the semantics of partial updates (e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved).

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 'Update profile with partial parameters' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'put_profile__id__custom'. It mentions 'partial parameters' which adds a small nuance about partial updates, but doesn't specify what resource is being updated (browser profiles) or what 'partial' means in practice. Compared to sibling tools like 'patch_profile_name_many' or 'post_profile_custom', it doesn't clearly distinguish its specific purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for profile operations (patch_profile_*, post_profile_*, get_profile_*), there's no indication whether this is for bulk updates, specific field updates, or when to choose this over other profile modification tools. The agent receives no usage context from the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update proxy' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. It also doesn't mention rate limits, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just two words ('Update proxy'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate as it avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place by stating the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'update' entails (partial vs. full updates), how it interacts with sibling tools, or what the agent should expect upon invocation. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance on behavior and outcomes.

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 100%, meaning all 9 parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no examples, no clarification of relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Update proxy' clearly states the action (update) and resource (proxy), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_profile_proxy_many_v2' or 'post_proxy_add_proxies' which might also modify proxy configurations. The description lacks specificity about scope or target.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that manipulate proxies (e.g., 'delete_proxy__id_', 'post_proxy_add_proxies', 'patch_profile_proxy_many_v2'), there's no indication of when this particular update operation is appropriate versus creation, deletion, or batch updates. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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