remove_intercept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no intercepts exist, whether removal is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, nor does it explain return values or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with both parameters ('pageId' and 'urlPattern') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('network intercept rules'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'intercept_network' (which presumably creates intercepts) or 'clear_network_logs' (which clears logs rather than rules), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether intercepts must exist first), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'intercept_network' or 'clear_network_logs', leaving usage context implied at best.

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