Save a response as an example

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

Well beyond the annotations, it discloses that examples are served by the mock server and used as comparison baselines, that the implicit-capture path draws from the last run in the current session, and that secrets and cookies are stripped from the captured response. It leaves open whether saving under an existing name overwrites or duplicates, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before behavior and mode switching; no filler. The middle sentence is dense, packing mock-server role, comparison use, default capture, and scrubbing into one run-on, but every clause carries information.

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 non-destructive write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the notable side effect of secret/cookie removal. Remaining gaps are the response shape and collision/overwrite semantics for the name parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics by showing that status and body together constitute an alternate mode rather than independent optional fields. It does not clarify headers/contentType interplay beyond what the schema already says.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: saving an example response on a saved request. The description then distinguishes the tool from nearby siblings like run_request and send_request by explaining that examples are what Kurlo's mock server serves and what live responses are compared against.

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?

It explicitly splits the two calling modes: omit status/body to capture the last run_request of that request in this session, or supply status and body to record a described response. That is a clear when-to-do-what rule. It does not, however, contrast with save_request or state prerequisites such as whether the request must already be saved.

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