nex_proxy_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states credentials are never returned, but this is already repeated in the schema's 'Write-only; never returned' property descriptions. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or return format. The credential warning adds no new information beyond the schema, leaving the description inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by a routing hint. No fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, two usage modes, and no output schema. The description omits what the tool returns on success (e.g., created proxy objects), any preconditions (authentication, API limits), and error behavior. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, this is a significant completeness gap. The description does not fully prepare an agent to call it safely and interpret results.

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 high (88%), but the description clarifies the key relationship: single creation via protocol/host/port versus bulk creation via items. This adds semantic meaning beyond individual property descriptions by explaining how parameters combine, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool creates one or multiple proxy resources from host/port and optional protocol. It explicitly names the sibling tool nex_proxy_import as the alternative for Desktop-compatible lines, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer nex_proxy_import for pasted Desktop-compatible lines, implying this tool is for custom/structured input. This distinction helps an agent choose correctly without extra inference.

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