add_map_local

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds useful override semantics: matching requests get content instead of or on top of the server answer via mode=body_only, and the mapping expires after ttl (default 1h). It does not cover persistence, matching precedence, or conflicts with existing maps, leaving a gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and then the expiry constraint. Efficient, but 'Mock responses' as an opening noun phrase is slightly less scannable than a direct action statement.

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 an 11-parameter, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It explains override and TTL behavior but omits persistence, matching/ordering rules, conflict handling, and how the local map relates to remove_rule or add_map_remote.

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 64%, and the description adds meaning for mode ('on top of' vs 'instead of') and ttl (default 1h), which the enum/default alone don't explain. However, it does not touch url wildcards, body/file exclusivity, headers, methods, or graphql_operation, so several parameters remain undocumented outside the 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 explains the effect of a mock mapping ('matching requests get this content instead of... the server's answer') but never frames the tool as 'add a local mock map' and does not distinguish it from the sibling add_map_remote. The purpose is inferable but not stated with a clear verb+resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_map_remote, add_rewrite, or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only implied usage is broad ('mock responses').

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