remove_proxy

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what the operation does, that it removes TLS termination and backend serving at the edge, and that the subdomain remains registered on the account. It does not discuss prerequisites or idempotence, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful boundary condition about the registration remaining intact.

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 simple two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description provides the action, the post-condition of the edge behavior, and the persistence of the domain name. Together with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to select and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters label and domain are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because the schema already explains formats, defaults, and when domain should be passed.

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 a specific action (stop reverse-proxying), the resource (a subdomain), and concrete consequences (no longer serves the backend or terminates TLS). It also explicitly notes that the name stays registered, which distinguishes it from deletion-focused tools like delete_domain.

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 phrase 'Stop reverse-proxying a subdomain' gives a clear use case, and 'the name stays registered' hints that this is not the tool for deleting the domain itself. It does not explicitly compare against set_proxy or remove_forward, but the proxy-specific wording makes the intended scope clear enough.

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