nex_proxy_delete

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

destructiveHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is to add caveats — it does flag that bought channel proxies may be rejected by Desktop and that credentials are never returned. However, it never says whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens to proxies bound to browsers, or whether a partial failure is possible in a batch delete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Slight waste: "Credentials are never returned" is a return-value note that is confusing on a delete endpoint, but nothing is bloated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would need to explain the result of a batch delete (per-ID success/failure, partial errors), and it does not. For a destructive multi-target operation with zero required parameters, the definition is minimally viable but leaves real gaps.

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%, and the schema itself documents proxyId as a single ID or list plus three aliases, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about ID format, alias precedence, or mixing aliases with proxyId.

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 (delete) and resource (custom proxy resources) with batch scope ("one or more"), so the agent can distinguish it from nex_proxy_create/modify/import. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but the verb makes the intent 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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of nex_proxy_modify or nex_browser_bind_proxy, and no preconditions such as ownership or whether proxies currently bound to browsers can be deleted. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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