whitelist_ip

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral consequence: a whitelisted machine uses the proxies without username/password. However, it does not explain whether changes take effect immediately, whether adding an IP overwrites or appends, what the list action returns, or how removals affect active sessions.

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 two efficient sentences: the first defines purpose and actions, the second gives usage context. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 plus the fully covered schema is enough to understand what the tool does and when to use it. However, the tool has 11 parameters that are action-dependent, and the description does not clarify which parameters apply to add vs remove vs list, nor does it describe the output of the list action beyond 'current entries'. This leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation across all variants.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter-level documentation. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the general auth context and the action names, which mirror the action enum. This is a solid baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific resource (IP-auth whitelisting on a proxy service) and explicitly enumerates the actions available (add, remove, list). It also scopes the feature to specific proxy types, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_proxies or generate_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 explicitly states when this tool is required ('required for the Mobile V2 IP-auth proxy list') and when it is not needed ('Residential Premium/Private use user:pass auth and don't need this'). This gives the agent clear selection criteria and prevents unnecessary or incorrect calls.

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