post_proxy_add_proxies

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.