Clear Mock Responses

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

Description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), confirming destructive removal behavior and adding context about implicit execution without contradiction.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with action and key usage details.

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 zero parameters and simple purpose, description fully covers usage, behavior, and relationship to sibling tools, with output schema present for completeness.

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?

No parameters in schema, but description adds semantics by naming mockId as optional parameter and clarifying its effect (remove specific vs all). Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Clearly states it removes mocks installed by set_mock_response, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_mock_response and noting implicit execution by stop_and_compile_test.

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?

Explicitly explains when to pass mockId (remove one) versus omit (clear all), and mentions that stop_and_compile_test runs it implicitly, guiding the agent on alternative invocation.

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