nex_proxy_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that credentials are never returned in the response, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, duplicate-host handling, partial-failure behavior when a batch item is invalid, or reversibility.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information: what it creates and which alternative to prefer. Nothing is repeated from the schema and 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, key facts are missing: whether a returned proxy record omits username/password fields, what happens on duplicate entries in 'items', and how it relates to nex_proxy_batch_create. The essentials are present but the picture is not complete.

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 already 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying the mutually exclusive shape — one proxy from top-level fields, or many via 'items' — which the zero-required-parameter schema with no oneOf does not make obvious.

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 and resource (create a custom proxy) and covers both modes: single via protocol/host/port, or several via 'items'. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling nex_proxy_batch_create, which plausibly covers the same multi-create case, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the user pasted Desktop-compatible lines, naming nex_proxy_import as the alternative. That is clear conditional guidance; only the unexplored overlap with nex_proxy_batch_create keeps it from a 5.

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