proxy_revise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a tool with 13 parameters that appears to modify proxy configurations, this lack of behavioral information is critically 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 extremely concise (just two Chinese characters), but this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's technically front-loaded with the only information provided, it fails to convey necessary information about a complex tool. The structure is minimal but not helpful.

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 complex mutation tool with 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, no behavioral context, no parameter guidance, and no usage instructions. The agent would struggle significantly to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters (only 2 with enums), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to, what the various proxy configuration fields mean, or how parameters interact. The agent must guess parameter meanings entirely from property names, which is insufficient for a complex tool with many configuration options.

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 '更新代理' (Update proxy) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'proxy_revise' (proxy revise/update). It doesn't specify what aspects of a proxy are updated, what resources are affected, or how this differs from sibling tools like proxy_create or proxy_remove. The description provides minimal information beyond the name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus proxy_create or proxy_remove, or what conditions must be met before invoking it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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