clear_mock_responses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it explicitly discloses the destructive scope ('all active rules') and the provenance ('injected by mock_response'). It does not discuss return values or persistence, but the most important behavioral risk—removing everything with no filtering—is clearly stated.

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, tightly worded sentence states the action, the target, and the scope without any filler. The key phrase 'all active' is front-loaded in the second word.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is functionally complete: it says what is removed, how many, and where they came from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or reason about this tool is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no missing parameter documentation. The description reinforces the no-filter behavior by saying 'all', which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), names the exact resource ('all active mock response rules'), and references the injection tool ('mock_response'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling cleanup tools like clear_healed_locators and clear_session_log.

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 that this tool is the counterpart to mock_response: it undoes what mock_response creates. It does not explicitly state 'use this after tests' or list exclusions, but the pairing with mock_response provides clear context and there are no competing tools for this exact purpose.

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