mock_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals one useful behavior—preserving advanced WireMock fields—but omits essential details like failure behavior, prerequisites, idempotency, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail—every phrase contributes meaning.

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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, and the presence of a complex nested 'mapping' object, this description is too sparse. It fails to cover return values, error scenarios, or detailed mapping requirements, leaving the agent to rely on inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention the 'id' parameter (by ID) and 'mapping' (the fields to update), and 'preserving' hints at partial update semantics. However, it does not explain the mapping object's structure or the nature of the update operation in detail.

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 the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'WireMock stub mapping by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mock_create, mock_get, and mock_delete. The clause 'preserving advanced WireMock fields' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing stub mapping identified by ID, which is a distinct context from creating or deleting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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