set-proxy-config

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 states 'Configure proxy settings for all exchanges', implying a system-wide mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like whether this requires elevated permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects on ongoing exchanges, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies global settings.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of configuring system-wide proxy settings, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool that could impact all exchanges, it should address permissions, side effects, or confirmation of changes. The current description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., username/password only needed when enabled) or format examples beyond the URL example already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Configure') and resource ('proxy settings for all exchanges'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-proxy-config' or 'test-proxy-connection', which would require mentioning this is for setting/updating rather than retrieving or testing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-proxy-config' or 'test-proxy-connection'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing admin permissions or when proxy changes are appropriate, leaving the agent with no usage boundaries.

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