proxy_set_upstream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the main action and supported schemes, but does not detail side effects (e.g., traffic interruption), persistence (transient vs permanent), or authentication requirements.

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 very concise: two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose, the second lists supported formats. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and supported protocols but lacks details on how the proxy affects existing traffic, whether the setting is persistent, or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by explicitly listing the allowed URL schemes for 'proxy_url' (socks4://, socks5://, http://, https://, pac+http://), which is not in the 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Set' and the resource 'global upstream proxy', specifying it applies to all outgoing traffic. It also lists supported URL schemes, and the name 'proxy_set_upstream' distinguishes it from siblings like 'proxy_set_host_upstream' which are per-host.

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?

The description implies usage for setting a system-wide proxy by stating 'global upstream proxy for all outgoing traffic'. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the context of siblings like 'proxy_set_host_upstream' provides differentiation.

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