Stop the network fault proxy

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses three concrete side effects: all faults are removed (not selectively), the proxy is closed, and a final summary is returned. It stops short of stating idempotency behavior or what happens if no proxy is running, which matters for a teardown call.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the byproducts after. No filler.

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 zero-argument teardown with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: side effects and the returned summary are named. The remaining gap is that the summary's shape is unspecified and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly says the scope of removal is everything rather than a subset. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 and resource ('removes every fault, closes the proxy') and implies the teardown counterpart to start_network_faults and set_network_faults. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling tool to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the cleanup step after start_network_faults. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisite (e.g. an active proxy), and no mention of the summary-only alternative network_fault_summary.

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