Update proxy settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds the patch semantics ('only the settings you pass are changed'), which supports the idempotency hint, but it never explains what is destructive — e.g. that auto_rotate_minutes=0 stops rotation or that an empty comment clears a label — nor whether permissions are needed.

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 tight sentences: the mutation scope is front-loaded, the affected fields are enumerated, and the partial-update guarantee closes it out. Nothing is wasted.

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 bulk mutation (up to 100 proxies) with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the description leaves open what happens on partial failure, whether the operation is atomic, and what the agent gets back. Annotations cover the safety profile, but these bulk-mutation gaps remain.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with ranges, defaults, and clearing semantics. The description only restates the same three optional fields, adding the minor detail that the rotation timer is relevant to mobile proxies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Changes settings'), a precise resource (proxies, in bulk), and enumerates the three mutable fields: auto-renewal, comment, and the IP rotation timer. It is clearly a settings-patch tool rather than an action tool like rotate_ip, but it never names or contrasts a sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 only guidance is 'Only the settings you pass are changed,' which is a partial-update rule rather than routing advice. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over renew_proxies for renewal behavior or over rotate_ip for immediate rotation, both of which are adjacent siblings.

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