octobrowser_update_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'update', implying a mutation, but does not state side effects, whether it destroys existing data, permission requirements, or impact on running profiles. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose without redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and sibling context.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters, one is a nested object (proxyData) with no further breakdown. The description does not explain what fields proxyData expects, what success/failure responses look like, or any constraints. With no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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%—both 'uuid' and 'proxyData' have descriptions that convey their purpose. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'existing proxy', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_proxy and delete_proxy. It is unambiguous about the action and target, though it does not enumerate what aspects of a proxy can be updated.

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 phrase 'existing proxy' implies use when modifying a currently stored proxy, and the sibling context provides alternatives (create/delete). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others, nor any mention of prerequisites or conflicts with active profiles.

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