Apply a TCP fingerprint profile

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: cost ('Free'), reversibility, queued asynchronous delivery with an up-to-a-minute lag, and per-proxy partial-failure behavior in errors. These directly clarify the destructiveHint=true flag by framing the change as reversible while still state-modifying — complementary rather than contradictory — and disclose failure/timing traits an agent could not infer from schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core effect, then scoped to a bounded clause per remaining concern (restore, cost, delivery lag, rejections). Dense but every sentence carries operative information; no filler.

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 two-parameter, non-idempotent-looking mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, cost, reversibility, async delivery timing, verification route, and error semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents proxy_ids (from list_proxies) and profile_id (from list_tcp_profiles, 0 = native). The description largely restates these, adding only the framing of profile_id=0 as 'restores the device's own fingerprint', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Makes mobile or server proxies present a TCP fingerprint profile') and names the sibling that supplies the value (list_tcp_profiles). Scope is bounded to mobile/server proxies, so an agent can distinguish it from neighboring profile/fingerprint tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (match network-level OS to the client device), a when-not (residential and backconnect proxies are rejected per proxy), and the restore path via profile_id=0. It also routes the agent to diagnose_tcp_fingerprint for verification, covering the alternatives section more fully than most definitions.

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