npm_create_proxy_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries all responsibility for behavioral context. It omits side effects, prerequisites (e.g., DNS pointing, certificate validity), and the fact that this modifies the NPM configuration. It only teases the purpose without detailing what happens upon creation or what the user needs to ensure beforehand.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. Two sentences with no filler, perfectly readable and to the point.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or potential pitfalls (e.g., certificate ID handling). The high-level purpose is there but lacks enough contextual depth to be considered complete.

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?

The schema has only ~25% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain the key fields like forward_host, forward_port, domain_names, or ssl_forced, leaving the agent to guess the roles of the 16 parameters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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 tool action ('Create a new reverse proxy host') and its intended use ('expose a service via a domain through NPM'). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating streams or redirection hosts.

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 provides a clear primary scenario: 'the main way to expose a service via a domain through NPM.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use update instead), so it stops short of full guidance.

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