webshare_refresh_proxies

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it reveals this is a whole-list mutation gated behind a quota and a required confirm flag. It does not say whether existing proxies/credentials are invalidated, whether the operation is reversible, or what it costs, which matters for a bulk overwrite.

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 short parenthetical-free sentences: purpose and precondition first, hard requirement second. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirm gate and quota prerequisite, but leaves the blast radius of a full-list refresh (what is destroyed, credential rotation, response shape) unstated. Adequate to invoke, thin for a bulk mutation.

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 0% and the single parameter is optional with default false, so the description's '必须传 confirm=true' adds genuinely necessary meaning the schema does not convey. That is the one piece of parameter semantics an agent needs, and it is supplied.

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 concrete verb (refresh) and resource (the entire proxy list), with scope explicitly 'entire list' rather than a single entry, which separates it from webshare_replace_proxy and webshare_list_replacements. It does not name a sibling outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one real precondition — the plan must have on-demand refresh quota — which is actionable. But it never states when to prefer this over webshare_replace_proxy or webshare_list_replacements, leaving the choice of alternative to inference.

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