nex_proxy_import

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful details like supported protocols and that credentials are never returned, but it does not explain whether the import persists, replaces existing proxies, or how malformed lines are handled. These are noticeable gaps.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides relevant information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Combined with a very rich schema, the description covers the main purpose, source, supported protocols, and a key credential-safety behavior. It lacks a statement about persistence/failure effects, but the context is enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already defines both parameters in detail. The tool description only reinforces the idea of importing text lines; it does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Import custom proxy resources') with a precise source ('Desktop-compatible text lines the user supplied in the current request'). Supported protocols are named, and the tool is immediately distinguishable from siblings like nex_proxy_list and nex_browser_bind_proxy.

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 gives clear usage context: use it when the user supplies Desktop-compatible proxy lines in the current request. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended scenario is obvious enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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