attach_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the file must exist on disk, what happens to a proxy already attached, whether the operation is reversible, or what the result looks like for this mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though so terse that the reader gains nothing about mechanics.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented. The description should at minimum cover file-path expectations and the effect on an already-attached proxy; neither is present.

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 only 50%: nodeId is documented as coming from get_project_items / find_project_items, but proxyPath has no description anywhere. The description adds no information about path format, supported file types, or whether relative/absolute paths are accepted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (attach) plus resource (proxy file to a project item), and the word 'existing' subtly separates it from the sibling create_proxy. It does not explicitly name create_proxy or toggle_proxies, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'existing proxy file' hints that create_proxy is the path when no proxy file exists, but the agent must infer this and is told nothing about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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