Update a proxy

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: existing profiles will adopt the new settings on next launch. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a meaningful consequence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too sparse. It does not cover return values, partial update behavior, or the need for the id parameter, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only says 'new settings' with no elaboration on id, host, port, type, login, password, or changeIpUrl. The agent has to infer meanings from property names alone, which is insufficient for parameters like changeIpUrl.

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 'Change a saved proxy' precisely states the action (change) and the resource (a saved proxy), clearly distinguishing it from create_proxy and delete_proxy. The added profile note reinforces its scope.

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 implies use for modifying an existing proxy versus creating a new one, which differentiates from create_proxy. It also notes that profiles pick up changes on next launch, giving timing context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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