remove_proxy

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It discloses the confirm gate, the response payload ('lists accounts still assigned pool:<name>'), and the downstream failure mode for accounts left in an emptied pool — exactly the consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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-loads the action, then the precondition, then the side effect — a sensible risk-ordered structure. Four short sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical could be tightened.

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?

Covers the critical risk surface (confirmation, blast radius on accounts) and an output schema exists to carry return details. It omits any mention of required permissions or how to recover reassigned accounts, which matters for a destructive admin operation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains confirm (required true) and implies pool semantics via 'pool:<name>', but proxy_url is left entirely undefined and pool format is only partially implied.

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 verb and resource ('Remove a proxy URL from a pool'), and the scope qualifier 'from a pool' cleanly separates it from add_proxy, list_proxies, and test_proxy in the sibling set. An agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.

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 a hard precondition ('Requires confirm=true') and describes the consequence of an edge case (emptying a referenced pool is allowed but reported, with accounts failing closed). It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly stating when-not to use it.

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