rotate_proxy_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the core behavior (rotating to a new IP) and distinguishes dedicated vs shared behavior, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the old IP is invalidated, if there are fees, rate limits, or how quickly the rotation takes effect).

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, front-loaded with the core action, and quickly addresses the shared-proxy exception with concrete alternatives. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case and distinction from shared proxies. It lacks some nuance (e.g., prerequisites, consequences), but is largely complete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 0% and the description does not address the 'proxy_id' parameter at all. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no guidance on how to obtain it, its format, or any related constraints, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Rotate a dedicated proxy to a new IP') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting that shared proxies rotate per-request and pointing to alternatives (create_proxy_list / list_proxy_lists). This provides a precise verb+resource+scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for dedicated proxies) and when not to (shared proxies), naming the alternative tools to use instead. This gives clear decision-making guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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