Clear mock rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the destructive behavior ('remove... all rules if no id is given'), which is important. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, whether bulk clearing affects shared state, or what happens if an id doesn't exist. The core mutation behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 sentence that fully communicates both usage modes. Zero wasted words. Every element earns its place. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

This is a simple tool: 1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description covers the two modes adequately. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations, it could note whether the operation returns confirmation, affects persistent state, or has cascade effects on transforms referencing removed mock rules. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly sufficient but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only 1 parameter (id), already documented with 'Rule id to remove. Omit to clear all rules.' The description adds the alternative behavior (omit = clear all), which is valuable context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full coverage with a single well-documented parameter.

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 what the tool does: 'Remove one mock rule by id, or all rules if no id is given.' It uses a specific verb (remove/clear) with a specific resource (mock rules). Distinguishes from siblings like proxy_clear_transforms by naming mock rules specifically. Could mention it's a destruction-like operation but the core purpose is clear.

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 explains the two modes of use (by id vs. clear all), which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like proxy_clear_transforms or proxy_update_transform, nor does it warn about destructive effects of omitting the id. The dual-mode behavior is implied but the consequences aren't spelled out.

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