Inject error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three behaviors (reset, close, timeout) but does not mention destructiveness, authentication needs, persistence of rules, or side effects. For an error injection tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main functionality. However, it could mention that the rule persists until removed and how it interacts with other rules.

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 67% (kind uses enum, method and urlPattern have descriptions). The description adds value by linking 'reset/close/timeout' to the kind parameter but does not elaborate on the meaning of each enum value or how to use method and urlPattern effectively.

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 'Break matching requests: reset/close the connection or hang (timeout)' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_delay_rule, add_mock_rule, add_modify_request_rule, and add_redirect_rule by focusing on error injection.

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 implies usage for simulating errors but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use delay_rule for slow responses). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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