proxy_set_upstream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the proxy applies to all outgoing traffic and lists supported schemes, but does not disclose persistence, immediate effect, authentication expectations, or interaction with existing per-host proxy rules.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and accepted schemes without filler. Every part contributes to deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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?

Together with the rich parameter schema, the description is sufficient to construct a valid call for a global proxy. However, for a mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the missing side-effect and alternative-routing context leaves noticeable gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the accepted URL schemes (socks4://, socks5://, http://, https://, pac+http://), which goes beyond the schema's single example.

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), the resource (global upstream proxy), and the scope (all outgoing traffic), plus the supported URL schemes. It is specific enough to stand apart from host-specific siblings like proxy_set_host_upstream, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'global upstream proxy for all outgoing traffic' implies when this tool is appropriate and hints that it is not a per-host setting. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as proxy_set_host_upstream or proxy_clear_upstream.

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