nex_proxy_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states a PATCH-like update semantic and that credentials are never returned, which is valuable security behavior. It does not mention error behavior, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens if the resource does not exist.

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 with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, the partial-update behavior is stated next, and the credentials note provides value without redundancy.

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 essential invocation semantics and a key security behavior. With 9 parameters and no output schema, more context could be given regarding expected return value, required identifier handling, and validation behavior. Nevertheless, the schema descriptions carry most of the parameter-level burden.

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?

The schema already covers 78% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds important update semantics by clarifying that only changed fields need to be passed. It does not, however, name individual parameters or explain the conceptual role of id/proxyId beyond the schema's field description.

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 states a clear verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('one existing custom proxy resource'), and a clear scope ('one'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that create, import, batch-create, delete, or detect proxies.

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 provides explicit partial-update guidance: 'Pass only the fields that must change.' It also frames the target as 'existing,' implying this is not for creation. However, it does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or state when to choose this over create/delete.

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