npm_update_proxy_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses PATCH-like partial-update behavior. However, it does not mention response format, error cases, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps for a mutating 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly thin. The partial-update hint is valuable, but return behavior and more detail on required fields are absent. It is minimally viable if paired with the schema.

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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. The general rule 'Provide only fields you want to change' helps frame parameter usage, but it does not compensate for 16 undocumented parameters. The agent must rely on field names and types.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing proxy host.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/get by implying mutation. The additional 'Provide only fields you want to change' clarifies partial-update semantics.

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?

Provides clear usage context: you update an existing host and only supply changed fields. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tool set and the word 'existing' make appropriate usage inferable.

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