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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it specifies the blast radius (ALL routes, not one) and the resulting state (interception un-armed, normal networking restored), which clarifies what destruction means here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the trigger condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter cleanup tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is cleared and when to call it. Only the device-scoping nuance against sibling mock tools is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (udid) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Remove ALL browser routes for this device and un-arm interception.' The emphasis on ALL implicitly contrasts with the sibling webpage_mock_remove (which presumably removes one route), so an agent can infer the distinction, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear lifecycle context, and the effect statement (restores normal networking) explains why. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. webpage_mock_remove for partial removal).

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