Add a proxy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description does add real value beyond them: the required accounts:write scope and the surprising failure mode where malformed bodies return 500 from a parse throw. It still omits whether duplicate hosts are rejected and what the success response contains.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then scope, endpoint and failure mode. Nothing is redundant, though the telegraphic "Malformed bodies yield 500 (throwing parse)" phrasing could be a touch clearer without adding length.

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?

Auth scope and one key error behavior are covered, and the rich schema plus annotations carry the rest. With no output schema, it would help to say what a successful add returns (an id?) and whether credentials are stored or verified, which matters for a mutation on a nested object.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested body documents host/port requirements, the port coercion, the protocol enum default and optional credentials. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Add a proxy" gives a verb and resource that separate it from update_proxy, delete_proxy and list_proxies, and the POST /proxies line confirms creation. However it says nothing about what a proxy definition consists of (host, port, protocol, credentials), so the purpose is stated but not characterized.

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 call this versus test_proxy (validate before adding) or update_proxy (change an existing one), and no mention of prerequisites such as an existing account. The only selection signal is the implied create-vs-update split carried by the verb.

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