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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it deletes ALL routes (not one), disables interception, and restores normal networking for the device's browser.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: scope/effect first, then the usage trigger. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 destructive teardown tool, annotations cover reversibility/idempotency and the description covers scope, effect, and timing, and no output schema is expected to be explained. Only minor detail missing (e.g. behavior when no routes are armed) keeps it from a 5.

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?

Single udid parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the meaning; "this device" only loosely ties the action to the parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (remove ALL Chrome/WebView routes for this device) plus the secondary effect of un-arming interception, which separates it from mock_add. It does not explicitly name mock_remove/mock_list, so the contrast with the per-route removal sibling is left implicit.

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?

"Call this when finished" gives a clear trigger condition for teardown, which is exactly the lifecycle guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming the alternative (mock_remove) for removing a single route, so no explicit when-not is given.

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