EnableProxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a state change operation ('Enable'), but doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens if the proxy is already enabled. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'enabling' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or provide any error handling context. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all. However, with only one parameter, the agent can infer it's likely a proxy identifier. The description adds no value beyond what's obvious from the schema structure, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the action ('Enable') and resource ('a backup proxy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DisableProxy' or 'CreateProxy', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateProxy' or 'DisableProxy', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the proxy must exist or be in a specific state). It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.

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