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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the behavioral effect: it removes all routes, un-arms interception, and restores normal networking. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the post-condition, though it omits details like idempotency or behavior when no mocks exist.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second provides usage guidance and the resulting network state. The structure is front-loaded and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and when to use it. It lacks only minor details like no-op behavior or error handling, which are not critical for this simple cleanup operation. Overall, an agent can invoke it confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about the 'udid' parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns exactly the baseline with no extra value.

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 action ('Remove ALL Chrome/WebView routes') and a secondary behavior ('un-arm interception'), identifying the resource and scope clearly. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like android_devtools_mock_remove by emphasizing 'ALL' and the teardown role, and from add/list/status by naming the cleanup operation.

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?

It gives an explicit temporal cue ('Call this when finished') and explains the outcome ('restores completely normal networking'), which tells an agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., mock_remove for selective cleanup) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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