Set Cloudflare Proxy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-readOnly; the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: partial failures surface under `skipped` with reasons instead of erroring, MX collisions surface under `warnings`, and the whole change is reversible in one call. The MX-breakage caveat concretely explains the risk behind the destructive flag rather than merely restating it.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries distinct operational information (default scope, eligibility, warnings, reversibility, dry_run). It is a dense single block, though, and the label-expansion parenthetical duplicates the schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description pre-empts the return shape by naming `skipped` and `warnings` and explaining what lands in each. Together with default-scope behavior and the reversal path, nothing an agent needs to call this safely on a live domain is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: omitted `records` defaults to every proxiable record, and only A/AAAA/CNAME are eligible while other types are silently skipped. It also restates the '@'/bare-label expansion that the schema already documents, which is the only redundancy.

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 — turning the Cloudflare orange-cloud proxy on or off for a domain's DNS records — and explicitly distinguishes this from the connect/import step that creates the records in the first place. An agent can tell this apart from create_cloudflare_record, edit_cloudflare_record, and connect_domains_to_cloudflare without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('best done AFTER confirming the site still works'), explains why proxying is deliberately not bundled with connection, names dry_run for previewing, and names enabled=false as the reversal path. This is when/when-not/alternatives coverage rather than a bare purpose statement.

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