Assign proxies to profiles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context: verification does a live check first, 'clear' removes assignments, free proxies are excluded, and the user is asked before acting. It does not explain what happens to pre-existing assignments in single/pool mode or why the operation is non-idempotent, which is the remaining 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?

Very dense and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by mode semantics, then source, verification, and the confirmation note. The telegraphic phrasing ('source all, unassigned ... or group') is compact but requires careful parsing, costing a point on readability rather than 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers modes, sources, verification behavior, and the confirmation step. It omits error/partial-failure behavior and what the call returns, which would be helpful but is not essential 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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so well: it defines all four mode values, all three source values, ties proxyId to mode single, proxyGroupId to source group, and verifyProxies to the live check. Only profileIds is left implicit (clearly the target list).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gives profiles a proxy') and then enumerates all four mode behaviors (single, unique, pool, clear), so an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes. The scope is further narrowed by 'Free proxies are never used', distinguishing it from proxy-discovery siblings like find_free_proxies.

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 mode and source enumerations effectively serve as when-to-use guidance: an agent can pick 'single' vs 'unique' vs 'pool' vs 'clear' from the described semantics, and 'source unassigned' is clarified as 'no profile uses it'. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. list_proxies for discovery) or stating when not to call it.

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