clear_intercepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool removes mocks and returns {success}, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility, impact on other sessions) or prerequisites (e.g., mocks must exist). The description is honest but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives usage context.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and return value. Missing details about error states (e.g., no mocks to clear) but overall adequate.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It clarifies that url_pattern uses exact matching and is optional, but this is also stated in the schema description. Baseline score of 3 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 removes network mocks created by intercept_network, with an option to filter by URL pattern. It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('network mocks'), and the distinction from the sibling tool intercept_network (which creates) is implied.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to restore real backend responses after testing mocked states.' This gives context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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