proxy_set_ja3_spoof

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the ja3 parameter is ignored and that the default Chrome preset is used. This is key behavioral info. However, it does not disclose whether the spoofing applies immediately or requires a restart, which would be helpful but not critical for a legacy tool.

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 sentences, zero waste. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with 'Legacy' and deprecation, then the key behavioral note.

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 legacy tool with no output schema and clear deprecation, the description covers what it does, what to use instead, and the ignored parameter. It doesn't explain the effect on traffic or session state, but given its deprecated status, this is minimally sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that the ja3 parameter is ignored and that the default Chrome preset is used, which goes beyond the schema's description ('ignored') by specifying the default behavior.

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?

Clearly states it enables fingerprint spoofing, marks itself as legacy, and directly names the replacement tool. The verb 'enable' and resource 'fingerprint spoofing' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling proxy_set_fingerprint_spoof.

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 says it's deprecated and instructs to use proxy_set_fingerprint_spoof instead. Also clarifies that the ja3 parameter is ignored, so agents know not to rely on it. Provides both when-not and alternative.

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