delete_mock_rulePermanently remove a mock rule by id from the local proxy. Records the deletion in the audit log.
Permanently delete a mock rule by id. The action is recorded in the local audit log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Mock rule id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: permanence ('Permanently delete') and audit logging. It doesn't contradict annotations; 'permanently' aligns with destructive.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns 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?
For a simple deletion tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description provides key behavioral context (permanence, audit log). Might benefit from mentioning idempotency or what happens if the rule doesn't exist, but it's largely complete.
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%, so the single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by id' without adding format, constraints, or examples. 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (mock rule), with the required identifier (by id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_mock_rule or update_mock_rule.
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 (when you want to permanently remove a mock rule), but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., toggle_mock_rule for disabling), and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.