Rotate Proxy IP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the behavioral context that it requests a fresh IP, implying the old IP is replaced. It doesn't disclose details like whether the old IP is permanently lost or if there are rate limits, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the use case is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what the response contains (e.g., new IP) but no output schema exists, so a brief note on return value would be a minor improvement.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that proxy_id comes from list_proxies or buy_proxy, which is helpful, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Request a fresh IP'), the resource ('an existing proxy'), and the use case ('when an endpoint flags the current exit IP'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buy_proxy or list_proxies by focusing on rotation of an existing proxy.

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 gives a clear context for use ('when an endpoint flags the current exit IP'), which implies the tool is for remediation of blocked IPs. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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