set_proxy

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: TLS is terminated by the edge's own certificate, the URL stays on the domain, the response is proxied, and the label is claimed if needed. It also notes the OAuth/hardcoded-hostname caveat. It doesn't mention output, errors, or reversibility, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact — three sentences — and each sentence carries distinct value: TLS claims the label, proxy not redirect, and caveat about hostname registration. It is a little dense with em-dashes, but it is efficient and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for an uncomplicated tool: it explains what the backend is, where it is, how TLS is handled, and one important caveat. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the agent is still left inferring about response/error behaviors, but the schema carries most of the missing details.

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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb–resource relationship: it 'serves a backend at a subdomain' through the AgentDomains edge, and contrasts proxy behavior with redirect behavior. This strongly differentiates it from siblings like set_forward or add_dns_record, so an agent can identify the intended operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a concrete use case — 'getting working HTTPS on an origin that has no certificate of its own' — and explains the proxy vs. redirect difference. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or list when-not to use it, but the contrast with a 'forward' provides clear context.

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