Clear request-modification rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive action, and the dual mode (single vs all) is disclosed. However, it does not reveal side effects — e.g., whether clearing all rules has irreversible consequences, whether a non-existent id errors or silently succeeds, or any confirmation/undo behavior. For a destructive operation this is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentence that packs both purpose and the two usage modes with zero wasted words. It is perfectly front-loaded: verb first, resource second, scope condition immediately after. Nothing extraneous.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains purpose, the two modes, and the conditional semantics of the parameter. Given the tool's low complexity, this is largely adequate. A small gap: no guidance on behavior for invalid/nonexistent ids and no explicit callout that this is a destructive operation, but the 'Remove' verb already conveys that.

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% — the single 'id' parameter is documented ('Rule id to remove. Omit to clear all.'). The description's phrase 'by id, or all rules if no id is given' reinforces the parameter's conditional semantics and explicitly covers the omit-to-clear-all usage. This adds modest value beyond the schema's own description but does not go deeper (e.g., id format, validation behavior).

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 verb ('Remove') and resource (request transform rule) with scope distinction: 'by id, or all rules if no id is given'. It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_update_request_transform (which modifies instead of removes) and proxy_clear_transforms (which clears a different resource type — transforms vs request transforms). The title adds redundant information but the description carries clear intent.

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 clarifies the two usage modes (single rule by id vs all rules when id omitted), which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over proxy_clear_transforms or when not to use it (e.g., if rules need to be preserved). The context around when 'clear all' is risky vs selective removal is implied rather than explicit.

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