Arm or remove network faults

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the call replaces rather than merges existing rules, fault windows are measured from invocation time, and dropOpen forces reconnection for persistent clients. No contradiction with the annotations, though it doesn't explain whether the change is reversible or scoped to a session.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the replacement/restore contract ahead of the secondary details. Dense and jargon-heavy but every sentence carries a distinct fact; minor packing of two ideas into the dropOpen sentence.

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 nested rule-array fault-injection tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side effects, the description covers the replace/restore contract, timing origin, and dropOpen. It still leaves the fault modes and count semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correctly constructing a rule.

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 0% and only the host pattern has any inline documentation, so the description must compensate. It does explain restore and dropOpen and clarifies that fromMs/untilMs windows are relative to this call, which is valuable, but the fault enum values (refuse/reset/stall/delay) and count remain undefined anywhere.

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 and semantics: it replaces the armed rule set, or clears it entirely via restore: true. It doesn't name the sibling tools (start_network_faults/stop_network_faults) that an agent would otherwise confuse this with, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 conditional guidance for one branch ('removes them all with restore: true') and implies replacement semantics for the other, which is useful. But it never says when to prefer this over start_network_faults or stop_network_faults, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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