set_throttle

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

The annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true generically; the description adds the crucial blast radius ('Affects everyone using the proxy') and the reversal step (set enabled=false when done), which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of saying whether in-flight or already-open connections are affected or how the change propagates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, zero filler. The global-impact warning and cleanup instruction both earn their place.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with strong annotation coverage, no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what it does, who it affects, and how to undo it. Gaps are minor: it does not say whether the throttle applies immediately to in-flight requests or how connections are released on disable.

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 83%, so parameters are already largely self-documenting, including the profile enum and the custom option fields. The description only implicitly touches parameters via 'latency, then limited bandwidth' and does not explain preset behavior or how profile interacts with the custom fields, so it adds little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and mechanism ('Simulate a slow network (latency, then limited bandwidth)') plus the goal (reproduce timeouts and slow-loading bugs). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as set_breakpoint or add_rewrite, which have different intents.

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?

Gears usage to a concrete scenario (reproducing timeouts and slow loads) and gives an explicit lifecycle instruction: set enabled=false when done. That is a clear when and when-to-stop; it lacks only an explicit comparison to alternative approaches, of which there are none obvious among the siblings.

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