enable_proxy_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behaviors: it starts a background event listener that auto-terminates after 30s of inactivity, initiates pre-warming navigation, requires credentials, and lists rate limits. This goes well beyond what annotations might cover, making the operational impact transparent.

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 structured with clear sections (side effects, auth, prerequisites, rate limits, returns) and front-loads the core action. While it is a bit longer than minimal, every sentence serves a purpose and it is well-organized for quick scanning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what it returns (confirmation) and covers prerequisites, side effects, and usage sequence. It could add error handling or edge cases but otherwise provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (coverage 100%), so the description's mention of pre-warming navigation and auth requirements adds only marginal context. It doesn't introduce new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already explains, keeping the baseline at 3.

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 tool activates proxy authentication interception via the Fetch domain, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates itself from generic operations by specifying its role for authenticated proxies and mentioning manual proxy configuration as an alternative, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to use this tool after 'restart_chrome' with proxy settings, and notes an alternative (manual proxy configuration). It also states prerequisites like requiring the proxy-server flag, giving agents clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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