Point the server at another Axure prototype

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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true; the description adds materially — session-persistent effect, server-side verification against the live Axure runtime, refusal of metadata endpoints/embedded credentials/non-web ports, and the fact that a failed verification admits nothing. Slight gap: it does not say how to revert to the configured AXURE_URL or whether a prior override is replaced silently.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then when-to-use, then safety, then post-call state; each paragraph carries distinct information. Mildly verbose in the safety paragraph ('looking for the Axure runtime in the real page'), but nothing is pure filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully restated, yet the description still previews the useful payload (Axure signals, page count, bounded page list) and points to axure_list_pages via the schema for the rest. Safety, failure behavior, session lifetime and next-step usage are all covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds genuine semantics for `url` — untrusted-input handling, http(s)-only requirement, and pre-admission verification — beyond the schema's own note. The other four parameters (filter, maxPages, settleMs, viewport) are covered only by the schema, which is acceptable given full 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?

States a specific action — repointing the server at a different Axure prototype — and explicitly scopes it as 'without changing any configuration', which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings axure_list_pages, axure_get_page_map, axure_get_visual and axure_get_interactions.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user names a prototype address in the conversation') with a concrete example, plus a named exclusion ('Do NOT call this when the user names no address') and the failure mode of guessing. The follow-up instruction ('then call the other tools normally') tells the agent what to do next.

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