whistle_mock_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the enable/disable action but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the rule does not exist), persistence, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, though it does omit usage and behavioral details, but this does not detract from conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and the existence of closely related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this tool fits alongside the separate enable/disable tools, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable invocation.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (enable with true=enable, false=disable; ruleName as the rule name). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic nuance beyond 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 '启用或禁用指定的 Mock 规则' clearly states the tool enables or disables a specified mock rule, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like whistle_rule_enable and whistle_rule_disable, which appear to offer similar functionality.

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 alternatives such as whistle_rule_enable or whistle_rule_disable. The description only states what the tool does, not the contextual use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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