set_proxy

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent; the description adds crucial behavioral nuance beyond that: the effect is deferred until the next launch, and running profiles are unaffected until restarted. This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and the removal case, the second covers timing and verification. Every clause earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the effect timing, and the recommended verification step. It also implicitly signals that existing proxies are overwritten, and the schema handles format details. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the empty-string removal behavior and the default protocol. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline 3 applies; it does not need to compensate for gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save a proxy in a profile's settings, replacing the current one; an empty string removes it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_proxy (which verifies) and list_profiles (which lists), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear timing guidance ('Takes effect on the next launch: a running profile keeps its old proxy until stop_profile and start_profile') and recommends a follow-up action ('Run check_proxy afterwards to see whether it works'). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative setters, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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