proxy_create

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description only states creation, lacking details on side effects, error conditions, success/failure responses, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient 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 concise with three sentences: first states the action, then explains the concept, then gives a typical use case. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with few parameters. The description explains the proxy concept and typical use case. An output schema exists (not shown) to cover return values. However, it could mention prerequisites or whether names must be unique.

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 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Create a new proxy in Zabbix', specifying the verb and resource uniquely. It differentiates from sibling tools like proxy_delete and proxy_update by focusing on creation.

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 context ('useful for firewall-separated networks') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxy_update or host_create. There is no mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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