nex_proxy_delete

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows it is destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that bought channel proxies may be rejected by Desktop and that credentials are never returned. These are concrete behaviors beyond the annotation, improving transparency.

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 three concise sentences, each contributing distinct information: the core action, a caveat about bought proxies, and a note on credentials. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the primary function and adds a couple of cautions, but it omits details about return values, error handling, or whether deletion is permanent. With no output schema, agents may need to infer the response format. For a simple delete operation, this is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described as an alias of proxyId. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already explains that the parameters accept single IDs or lists. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 action (delete) and the resource (custom proxy resources) with a specific scope: 'Delete one or more custom proxy resources.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nex_proxy_create, nex_proxy_modify, and nex_proxy_list, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage is implied by the delete intent, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or contextual conditions. The caution about 'Bought channel proxies may be rejected by Desktop' is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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