tcp_proxy_create

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

The description does not contradict the lack of annotations (none provided). It clearly indicates that creation is for TCP proxies, which is a non-destructive mutation. However, it does not detail what happens upon success (e.g., returns a proxy ID) or any potential side effects. Still, the behavioral intent is well-communicated, earning a 4.

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 concise, structured with headings and bullet points using emojis. Every sentence provides value without redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then organizes additional guidance logically.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and prerequisites well. The missing explanation of the return value or outcome is a minor gap, but the context is largely complete for a creation tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions that environmentId is 'usually obtained from service_info'. This is helpful but not substantial. The parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

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 'Create a new TCP proxy for a service' with specific use cases (database access, external connections, TCP services) and explicitly distinguishes from HTTP/HTTPS endpoints (domain_create) and internal service communication. It provides a clear verb-resource definition and differentiates from sibling tools like domain_create and tcp_proxy_list.

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 includes explicit 'Best for' and 'Not for' categories, prerequisites (service_list), alternatives (domain_create), next steps (tcp_proxy_list), and related tools. This provides comprehensive guidance on when and how to use this tool, including what to avoid.

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