add_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation, dedup, backup, atomicity, and credential masking in response, providing good behavioral context.

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 efficient sentences. First sentence front-loads core action and key traits (validated, deduped, backed up, atomic). Second sentence adds credential handling and usage hint. No redundancy.

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 add tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and a usage hint. Lacks error context and output schema hint, but sufficient for most agents.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains pool as named pool (created if new) and proxy_url as URL with validation/dedup. Adds value beyond parameter names.

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 identifies the verb 'Add', the resource 'proxy URL', and the target 'named pool' with specifics like 'in settings.json'. It distinguishes from sibling 'remove_proxy' and provides additional details like validation and dedup.

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 implies usage by mentioning assignment via update_account, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. No comparison to sibling test_proxy.

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