mock_remove

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

There are no annotations, so the description correctly takes on the burden of explaining side effects. It states that the file moves to the archive and that requests pass through to the real server again, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not mention permissions or restore options, but the core mutation behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single, compact sentence front-loads the action and then gives concrete consequences. It contains no filler and does not repeat schema information, making every word earn its place.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with fully documented inputs and an output schema present. The description covers the trigger condition, the effect on the mock file, and the runtime effect on requests, which is complete for this operation.

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 both parameters fully documented including examples and caveats. The description reinforces that the operation affects a single path, matching the 'path' parameter, but adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Stop mocking', and a specific resource, 'one path', then states the consequence. This clearly distinguishes it from related operations like mock_set_enabled or mock_rule_remove even without naming them.

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 phrase 'Stop mocking one path' clearly signals when to use the tool: when a mocked path should no longer be intercepted. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the pass-through consequence provides enough context for an agent to understand the intended use.

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