nex_browser_bind_proxy

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states that running windows are rejected, that windows must be closed first, and that proxyId=0 removes the binding. This gives an agent the key operational constraints without over-explaining.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the special removal case is stated, and the critical constraint about running windows is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple bind operation with full schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is bound, to what, the removal sentinel, and the closed-window precondition. It does not explain return values or error cases, but those are not critical for this tool's correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents proxyId, windowId, and windowIds. The description reinforces that proxyId=0 removes the binding and that multiple window IDs are supported, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Bind'), a resource ('one proxy resource'), and a target ('one or more closed NexBrowser windows'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nex_browser_bind_account by specifying the proxy-to-window relationship. It also clarifies the special proxyId=0 removal behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: bind a proxy to closed windows only, and running windows are rejected and must be closed first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the alternative bind operations obvious, and the closed-window constraint is a strong usage signal.

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