proxy_remove

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. '删除代理' implies a destructive mutation but provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely 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 at just two characters. While this represents severe under-specification, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every character earns its place by conveying the core action, though it fails to provide necessary additional 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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides only the bare minimum action without explaining parameters, behavior, consequences, or alternatives. For a tool that permanently removes resources, this level of documentation is dangerously incomplete and could lead to incorrect 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. The description mentions nothing about the 'ids' parameter - what format the IDs should be, where to get them, whether they're proxy IDs or something else, or what happens if invalid IDs are provided. With one required parameter completely undocumented in both schema and description, this represents a significant 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 '删除代理' (delete proxy) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'proxy_remove' in Chinese. It provides a verb+resource but lacks specificity about what kind of proxy is being deleted or how the deletion works. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'env_remove' or 'group_remove' which perform similar deletion operations on 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, when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. With sibling tools like 'proxy_query' and 'proxy_revise' available, there's no indication of when deletion is preferred over revision or what context warrants this destructive operation.

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