clear_mock_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It describes the destructive nature (wiping all mocks and stopping server), provides an equivalent command (`rm -rf ~/.cache/mockzilla-mcp/mocks` plus `stop_locally`), and explicitly states what it does NOT affect ('Does not touch the mockzilla CLI binary or other bridge state'), offering full transparency.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the primary action, includes a functional equivalent, and adds clarifying statements. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, how it relates to siblings (`mock_endpoint`, `stop_locally`), its effects, and its limitations. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect, but since no parameters exist, it cannot add parameter-level detail. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Wipe ALL mocks created via `mock_endpoint` and stop the managed server.' It uses a specific verb ('Wipe') and resource ('ALL mocks'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `mock_endpoint` (which creates) and `stop_locally` (only stops server).

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to start fresh,' providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient to infer that this is for complete cleanup; alternatives like `stop_locally` exist for partial actions.

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