webshare_replace_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two things that matter most for a mutation: execute=true consumes the monthly replacement quota and the change is irreversible. It is silent on which existing proxies are discarded, required permissions, and how batching via count behaves, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversible/quota warning before the type enumeration. No filler, though the trailing enum lists largely duplicate what the schema already exposes.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the dangerous defaults but leaves the selection semantics of with_type/with_values and the meaning of count unexplained. An agent can avoid the irreversible mistake but cannot confidently predict what set of proxies it is swapping out.

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% across 6 parameters. The description explains the semantics of execute (dry-run vs real) and restates the to_type/with_type enum options, but adds nothing about count, to_values, or with_values (e.g., whether they are country codes, CIDRs, or ASNs), leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opening sentence '更换代理 IP' states a specific verb (replace) and resource (proxy IP), which immediately distinguishes it from list/stats/config siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with webshare_refresh_proxies, which is the nearest conceptual alternative, 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?

It gives clear operational guidance for the execute flag: default run is a dry-run preview, execute=true performs the change. However it never says when to prefer this over webshare_refresh_proxies or webshare_list_replacements, and gives no prerequisites or exclusion conditions, so usage is only partially covered.

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