nex_browser_bind_proxy

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

With a destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds useful context: proxyId=0 removes the binding, and running windows are rejected. These details go beyond the annotation, though it doesn't elaborate on other side effects or return behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. Every word earns its place, with 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 simple bind operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the special removal case, and the critical constraint about closed windows. This is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 both parameters (proxyId with 0 meaning removal, windowId with closed windows or list). The description repeats the proxyId=0 detail, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (bind) with a clear resource (proxy) and target (closed NexBrowser windows). It also notes the special proxyId=0 removal behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nex_proxy_list or browser actions.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool (bind proxy to closed windows) and when not to (running windows are rejected). It gives a clear prerequisite: windows must be closed first, which is a strong usage guideline.

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