Clear transform 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. The description indicates a destructive/removal action ('remove', 'clear all'), but it doesn't state whether removal is reversible, whether 'clear all' is destructive without confirmation, whether saved transform rules are affected, or whether the operation persists across restarts. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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?

One sentence, zero waste. It communicates the primary action and the id-optional behavior efficiently. There is nothing extraneous to trim.

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 simple single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely adequate. However, given the destructive 'clear all' behavior and a large sibling family (including proxy_clear_request_transforms and proxy_clear_mocks), the lack of guidance about what 'transforms' encompasses as a category, and the absence of any note about persistence or reversibility, leaves the description slightly under-complete for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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 the single 'id' parameter well ('Transform rule id to remove. Omit to clear all.'). The description reiterates this but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema—it restates the same mode logic without adding format, validation, or example details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('remove') with a clear resource ('transform rule'), and explicitly states the two modes: remove one by id, or clear all if no id given. This is clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like proxy_clear_request_transforms, which is a separate resource.

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 clearly states when to remove one vs all rules (by whether an id is given). However, it doesn't explicitly direct the user to a specific sibling tool for the alternative case, nor does it explain when NOT to use this tool in favor of proxy_clear_request_transforms, proxy_update_transform, or proxy_clear_mocks. The mode distinction is helpful but exclusions are absent.

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