proxy_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states that it creates a configuration, implying a write operation, but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, if it can overwrite existing configurations, what side effects occur, or how errors are handled. For a tool that creates a resource, this is a significant gap—the agent has no insight into the operational impact.

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 a single sentence with no verbosity, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified; it lacks structure or elaboration that would help the agent. While it avoids fluff, it also earns its place only minimally—it could be considered too thin to be genuinely useful, but it is not a tautology.

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 tool has 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description does nothing to explain how to construct a valid request, what the expected behavior is, or what the result looks like. For a create operation with multiple enum-based parameters, this is completely inadequate. An agent would have to rely solely on the schema, missing critical context like considerations for proxy_url or ipchecker.

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 describes all 8 parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how parameters relate or any special constraints. Per the calibration rule, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and since the description offers no supplementary parameter insight, this score is appropriate.

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 the verb 'create' and the resource 'proxy configuration', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_list and proxy_create is unique among the list, so there is no ambiguity about what it does. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a proxy configuration (e.g., including host, port, type), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there is no sibling that performs the same creation operation, the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a proxy type must be chosen from the enum) or suggest when to use proxy_create vs listing or managing proxies. No context for tool selection is provided.

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