mock_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'preserving advanced WireMock fields', which hints at a non-destructive handling of extra fields, but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the tool overwrites existing mappings, requires authentication, or returns a specific response. The description is insufficient for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action first and then adds a meaningful qualifier. This is concise and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a complex nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns on success, how to handle errors, or how the created mapping interacts with other mock tools. The description is too minimal for a tool that creates rich WireMock stubs.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. The only parameter 'mapping' is described as a 'WireMock stub mapping', which gives a general idea but lacks details about its required structure (e.g., request matchers, response templates). The schema itself is generic (an object with additionalProperties), so the description offers only minimal semantic value.

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 and resource: 'Create a WireMock stub mapping'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like mock_list and mock_delete by indicating it is a creation operation. The additional phrase 'preserving advanced WireMock fields' adds nuance, further clarifying the tool's focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over mock_update or mock_delete, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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