post_proxy_delete_proxies

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.