proxy_inject_headers

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses it's a passthrough rule with header transforms but omits side effects like rule activation timing, overwrite behavior, or permission requirements. Lacks full transparency.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and high schema coverage, the description captures the essence and differentiates from siblings. Lacks mention of return behavior but no output schema expected. Still sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so schema already documents all parameters. Description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'passthrough rule'), which warrants a baseline 3. No significant additional explanation beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Add or overwrite headers' and resource 'matching traffic', and specifies it creates a passthrough rule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_add_rule or proxy_rewrite_url.

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?

Description implies usage for header injection on matching traffic but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like proxy_add_rule with transforms. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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