proxy_access_lists

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the approval gate for writes and the blast radius of deletion ('affects every proxy host that uses it'), which is exactly the kind of context annotations can't express. It stops short of describing pagination or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then safety constraints, then the input format and destructive consequence. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the approval/destructive behavior is covered. However, with 8 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the missing coverage for limit/offset/dry_run/list_id leaves the definition meaningfully incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies the allow/deny comma-separated IP/CIDR format and implicitly ties name/list_id to create/delete; limit, offset, dry_run, and action semantics are unaddressed. That leaves most parameters undocumented in both structured and prose fields.

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 the resource ('IP access lists') and enumerates the operations (list, create, delete), so an agent can tell this manages proxy ACLs rather than proxy hosts or certificates. It is clear but lacks an explicit 'manage' verb and doesn't contrast itself with the proxy_* siblings beyond resource name.

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?

Explicitly states list is read-only and that create/delete require approval or ALLOW_WRITES, which is actionable when-to-use context. It also warns that deleting a list affects every proxy host using it. It doesn't name alternatives, but for a resource-scoped CRUD tool that's a minor gap.

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