npm_create_proxy_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only notes that advanced_config and per-location advanced_config are supported. It says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, whether the operation is idempotent or fails on duplicate domains, side effects, or what is returned (e.g., the new host id).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly redundant in mentioning advanced_config twice, but it usefully surfaces the nested locations capability.

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?

For a comparatively complex 17-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits required-field context, defaults, and return value. The rich schema partly compensates, but the description should say more to be 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%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a marginal note about advanced_config and locations, without clarifying the interplay of the many networking/SSL options beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Create a new proxy host in Nginx Proxy Manager'), which distinguishes it cleanly from npm_update_proxy_host, npm_delete_proxy_host, and the list/get siblings. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or contrasts its role, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a certificate or access list must exist first). It simply asserts what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the creation path versus update.

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