stop_interception

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It accurately describes removal by id or all, but doesn't disclose if the action is permanent, reversible, or requires active interceptions. Minimal but not misleading.

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, clear sentence front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words, effectively conveying the tool's functionality.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It covers the core behavior, though it could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., interception must be active).

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 0%, so the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explains the effect of omitting rule_id (remove all) versus providing one (remove specific). This adds valuable usage semantics for the only parameter.

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 tool removes interception rules, specifying two modes: by id or all rules when rule_id is omitted. The verb 'remove' and resource 'rule' are precise, and it differentiates from siblings like configure_proxy or mock_response.

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: to stop an interception rule. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context from sibling names (e.g., list_interceptions, fail_requests) makes it clear. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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