toggle_system_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important side effect (writes the registry and notifies applications), which is genuinely valuable. It omits other behavioral facts such as whether elevation is required, whether the change is reversible, and what is returned.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and its mechanism, then the parameter default. No filler.

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 two-parameter, zero-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics and the key default, but leaves permission requirements, platform constraints, and result/feedback behavior unstated.

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 50%: 'port' is documented in the schema, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'enable' parameter by explaining the flip-on-omission default. The one remaining gap is that it doesn't state the default port behavior in the description itself, but the schema covers that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: toggling the Windows system proxy, and notes the mechanism (registry edit plus notifying apps). It is clearly distinct from siblings like set_tun or set_mode, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives one useful conditional: omitting 'enable' flips the current state. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over set_tun/switch_proxy, nor any prerequisites such as requiring Windows or elevated permissions.

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