Set Mock Response

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

The annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context about lifecycle (auto-clean vs. persistent) and mode differences, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description addresses purpose, modes, lifecycle, and prerequisites. It lacks mention of error handling or failure scenarios, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already has detailed descriptions for many parameters (e.g., matcher fields, mock.id). The description adds conceptual understanding of the two modes but does not delve into parameter syntax or the sessionId distinction. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description provides moderate additional value.

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 clearly states the tool installs a live response-mocking rule via Proxyman and distinguishes two modes (staticResponse and responseTransform.jsonPatch). It uses specific verbs and resources, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides guidance on session-scoped vs. standalone mocks and the prerequisite of Proxyman running with MCP. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like clear_mock_responses.

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