regenerate_proxy_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the action is to rotate the password and that new credentials are returned, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing sessions are invalidated, whether authorization is required, or whether there are any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and follows with the return value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it conveys the operation and the output. However, it lacks contextual details about side effects or prerequisites, which would be expected for a mutating operation with no annotation support.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly mention proxy_id. However, the parameter name 'proxy_id' is self-explanatory, and the description's reference to 'proxy gateway password' implies that proxy_id selects the target proxy. The description adds no further meaning, but the single parameter is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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 'Rotate' and the specific resource 'main proxy gateway password', making the tool's purpose explicit. It is also well-differentiated from sibling tools like rotate_proxy_ip (which rotates the IP) and renew_proxy (which renews the proxy), so there is no ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for password rotation specifically, nor does it exclude cases where IP rotation or proxy renewal would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely absent.

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