Rotate proxy IP

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: active connections drop, it takes ~3-10s, it is free of charge, there is a short cooldown between rotations, and verify adds ~1-2s. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before invoking a disruptive action.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (per-type behavior, side effects, latency, cost, cooldown, verify cost). No filler or repetition.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, timing, cost, cooldown, and the optional verify flag, which is everything an agent needs to call it safely and correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by quantifying the cost of verify=true (adds ~1-2s), which the schema only describes functionally. That is modest but real added value.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Gets a proxy a new exit IP.' It then differentiates behavior by proxy_type (mobile reconnect vs residential sticky/rotating), giving an agent a precise mental model of what the tool does.

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 conditional context (sticky mode needs a rotation; rotating mode already changes per request), which implicitly guides usage. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over the sibling rotate_until_clean, nor does it name alternatives, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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