clash.runtime.refresh_proxy_provider

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the per-provider lock prevents concurrent refresh, and it 'Does NOT modify persistent config.' This adds value beyond the input schema. However, it could mention error behaviors or return values, though the lack of output schema reduces the need.

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: two sentences covering the action, lock behavior, confirmation, and side effects. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured, with no redundant 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?

For a simple refresh tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, parameters (confirmation), concurrency control, and persistence behavior. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand how to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by calling the confirmation 'light' and explaining that the lock prevents concurrent refresh, which provides context beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Refresh a proxy provider by name.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that directly communicates the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like clash.runtime.refresh_rule_provider, which refreshes rule providers instead.

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 clear usage context: 'Per-provider lock prevents concurrent refresh. Light confirmation required.' This tells the agent when to use it (for proxy providers) and that a confirmation parameter must be true. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling distinction is implied.

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