toggle_mock_ruleToggle the enabled state of a mock rule by ID in ProxyKit without altering other fields. Omit the enabled parameter to flip the current value.
Enable or disable a mock rule by id without changing any other fields. Omit enabled to flip the current value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Mock rule id. | |
| enabled | No | Desired state. If omitted, the current value is flipped. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this is a partial update that touches only the enabled field, and the omitted-parameter default flips the value rather than resetting it. It does not mention error behavior for bad ids or what the call returns.
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 with zero filler; the core action and the id-scoping constraint are front-loaded, and the default-behavior note follows immediately.
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?
No output schema exists, so describing the return value is not required, and the description covers the action, scope, and default behavior for a simple two-parameter toggle. Only missing piece is failure handling for an unknown id.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's note about omitting 'enabled' largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (mock rule by id), and the clause 'without changing any other fields' implicitly distinguishes it from update_mock_rule. It never names the sibling outright, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being routed to it.
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?
'Omit enabled to flip the current value' gives concrete usage for the optional parameter, which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-update_mock_rule / toggle_chaos_rule / toggle_rewrite_rule statement and no mention of preconditions (e.g., rule must exist, paused state).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.