vibeside_throttle_network

Does 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 discloses the CDP mechanism but says nothing about persistence across navigations, reversibility (whether vibeside_reset_emulation is needed to undo it), or whether a named profile overrides the individual latency/packetLoss/throughput fields.

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 no wasted framing, though the inline enumeration of profiles duplicates the schema enum and slightly bloats the one sentence that exists.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the interaction rules that matter most: how 'custom' combines with latency/packetLoss/throughput, the meaning of -1 throughput, and how the state is reverted. It is too thin for this complexity.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the enum and override fields; baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical profile list merely restates the enum values and adds no syntax or override-interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb (Emulate) and resource (network conditions) with the mechanism (via CDP), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as vibeside_list_network_profiles, vibeside_benchmark_network, or vibeside_reset_emulation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied — the agent can infer this is for simulating network conditions during testing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., active browser session required), and no mention of the reset/listing siblings. Minimum viable guidance at best.

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