Clear all active network mock rules or remove a specific rule by ID. Use this to reset mocking or delete one route.
Clear all active network mock rules or remove a specific rule by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Specific rule ID to delete (if omitted, clears all rules) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey the destructive scope (wiping all rules vs. one), which is the key trait, but omits whether the operation is reversible, requires confirmation, or affects in-flight requests. Adequate but incomplete.
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, tight sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded and no filler. It earns its place, though it is almost too terse for a destructive operation.
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 simple one-parameter clear tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials. But with zero annotation coverage on a destructive operation, it should do more to disclose reversibility or side effects to be fully self-sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100% and only one optional parameter exists, so the schema already documents the 'id' semantics, including the omitted-clears-all behavior. The description restates this dual-mode meaning without adding format or validation detail, matching the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('network mock rules') with two clear modes of operation (clear all vs. delete one by ID). This is unambiguous, though it never names its siblings (vibeside_mock_route, vibeside_list_mock_routes) to help the agent differentiate.
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?
Usage is implied by the dual-mode phrasing ('clear all' vs. 'remove a specific rule by ID'), so an agent can infer intent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to vibeside_mock_route (which creates mocks) or vibeside_list_mock_routes (which enumerates them).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.