Update a proxy

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the required scope "accounts:write" and the non-obvious quirk that the endpoint "Returns success even if no proxy matched" — critical for an agent that would otherwise assume a 2xx means the update applied. It does not state whether omitted body fields are preserved or cleared, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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, then endpoint, then caveat — no filler. The telegraphic style (bare path, bare verb phrase) is slightly clipped but costs no comprehension.

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 mutation tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers auth scope and the silent-success behavior, which are the highest-risk unknowns. It still leaves unclear whether this is a merge or replace update and what a success response contains, leaving the agent to infer partial-update semantics from PATCH.

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 every field (host, port, password, protocol enum, username) is typed and documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the id path parameter or the nested body object beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

"Update a proxy" essentially restates the tool name and title, but the addition of "PATCH /proxies/{id}" confirms a partial-update semantics on a single proxy identified by id. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as test_proxy or create_proxy, so the agent gets a correct but shallow sense of purpose.

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, create_proxy, or delete_proxy, and no prerequisites beyond the API scope. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the edit path for an existing proxy.

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