bowire.mock.start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the handle return, concurrency limits, and the non-obvious two-step confirmation protocol including the exact pending payload shape ({ pending, confirmationToken, plan }). It stops short of stating cleanup expectations, error behavior, or whether the referenced recording/schema files must pre-exist.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing, with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational details (handle, concurrency, two-step flow) following in descending order of importance. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must anchor the agent's expectations, and it does via the pending-call response shape and the handle/stop relationship. Remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on failure modes or whether the mock server lifecycle outlives the session.

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 each of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces confirm/confirmationToken semantics but adds no new meaning, and it does not clarify that recording/schema/grpcSchema/graphqlSchema are mutually exclusive input modes.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb ('Spin up'), the resource ('local Bowire mock server'), and the two input modes ('replays a recording (or synthesises responses from a schema)'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming bowire.mock.stop as the consumer of the returned handle, so an agent can separate it from mock.list or record.replay.

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 states the context clearly: start a mock, use the handle with bowire.mock.stop, and multiple mocks may run concurrently on different ports. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives like bowire.record.replay or when a mock is preferable to a live recording, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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