Update proxy list

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only. The description adds real behavior beyond them: updates are partial rather than full replacement, the login credential is preserved, and the network whitelist is immutable through this call. It still says nothing about permissions or the effect of a geo change on existing sessions.

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 dense sentences, zero filler. The mutable surface is front-loaded, then the two invariants (login stable, network immutable) follow, so the agent hits the important constraints first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 12-parameter mutation the description covers mutability, partial-update behavior, and immutability of one field, which is the critical context. Minor gaps remain around preconditions and whether a list must be active to be updated.

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 coverage is 92%, so the schema already documents parameter names, formats, enums, and the single-country constraint on region/city/isp/zip. The description restates the geo grouping and the country-vs-countries distinction without adding syntax or new constraints. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the weight.

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?

Specific verb (change) plus resource (existing proxy list) and an enumeration of the mutable dimensions: name, geo, rotation, format. The statement that the network/IP whitelist cannot be changed implicitly distinguishes it from delete_proxy_list and create_proxy_list, so an agent can place it among siblings 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?

Explicitly states partial-update semantics ('omitted fields keep their values') and an exclusion with a workaround: use delete+create instead of this tool when changing the whitelist. It does not name the sibling tools literally, and gives no preconditions (e.g. list must be active), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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