vibeside_mock_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the behavioral modes (fake status, body, artificial latency, simulated faults) but omits rule lifecycle semantics: whether a rule persists, what happens on conflicting patterns, and that 'times' auto-removes the rule. The schema carries some of that, but the description adds no lifecycle or session-requirement context.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the configurable dimensions trailing. No filler, no redundancy.

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 mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions that a rule identifier is produced, how rules are later listed or cleared, or whether a connected browser session is required. The exhaustive schema compensates for parameter detail, but the operational context is incomplete.

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%, so every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description groups parameters conceptually (status, body, latency, faults) but adds no syntax, matching semantics, or interaction details beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('intercept and mock network HTTP/GraphQL requests in the browser') and enumerates the controllable dimensions (status, body, latency, network faults). It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent tools like vibeside_throttle_network, though it never names its closest siblings (vibeside_list_mock_routes, vibeside_clear_mock_routes) to sharpen the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent is left to infer that this creates a route rule, and nothing tells it how this relates to vibeside_list_mock_routes / vibeside_clear_mock_routes for managing rules or to vibeside_throttle_network for degradation scenarios.

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