browser_mock_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the notion of intercepting and mocking/blocking, which is essentially the core behavior, but it does not disclose details such as whether mocks persist across navigation, how to later remove a route, or side effects on page behavior. This is minimal extra context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately gives concrete examples. There is no wasted or redundant wording; every phrase adds value.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive action, the description is reasonably helpful but incomplete. It does not explain the lifecycle of a mock route, whether the interception applies to all requests, or what the return value looks like. The schema covers parameter details, but broader behavioral context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds example URL patterns (images/ads) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('intercepts and mocks/blocks') and clearly identifies the resource (network requests matching a URL pattern). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on modifying/blocking rather than observing network activity, and includes concrete examples.

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 provides clear context (intercepting network requests for blocking or mocking) and gives examples of typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like browser_network_requests, so it stops 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.