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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that matching requests never reach the real server, explains update-in-place semantics via id, states that changes take effect live without restart, and clearly identifies the certificate-pinning limitation. This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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?

Four dense, purposeful sentences: the primary action and modes are front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, live behavior, and limitations. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 complex 12-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is operationally complete. It covers what the tool does, when it can be used, its side effects, update behavior, and unavoidable limitations, while the schema handles the detailed parameter definitions.

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 100% of the 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining what mode 'mock' and 'abort' actually do, clarifying the default mode, and summarizing id-based in-place replacement. It doesn't need to repeat every parameter because the schema already covers them.

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, 'Add (or update in place...)', against a specific resource: a mock/abort rule for HTTPS requests in the TLS-inspecting proxy. It also explains both modes ('mock' returns given status/headers/body; 'abort' kills the connection), making it clearly distinguishable from list/remove sibling tools.

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 context: it requires TLS capture to already be running (ios_traffic_start), states routes are per-device and take effect live, and warns that certificate-pinned apps can't be intercepted. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mock-add tools such as ios_safari_mock_add, but the context rules out many misuses.

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