renew_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'purchasing' (a financial transaction) and 'Quote-then-commit,' but does not explain how commit works, what the response contains, or any side effects. The quote-then-commit flow is ambiguous given only proxy_id is provided.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but leaves the quote-then-commit process undefined and does not describe the return value even though there is no output schema. An agent would be uncertain about the expected response or follow-up actions.

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 one parameter (proxy_id) with zero description coverage. The description clarifies that the proxy is the one whose expiry is being extended, which gives semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. For a single, self-explanatory parameter, this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('extend') and resource ('proxy's expiry') with the method ('purchasing another period'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like topup_proxy or get_proxy_status by focusing on renewal through purchase.

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 usage: when you want to extend a proxy's expiry by buying more time. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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