manage_mock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the multi-operation nature and provides examples, but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, whether operations are atomic/reversible, or what happens on errors. The examples help but don't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by action-specific guidance, and comprehensive examples. While slightly longer due to examples, every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational guidance. The examples are valuable but make it less concise than a minimal description could be.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good operational guidance but has gaps. It explains parameter usage well but doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or system behavior during operations. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the lack of output schema and behavioral context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter dependencies and usage patterns beyond the schema: it clarifies which parameters are needed for which actions (e.g., 'For get/update/delete/toggle, provide the mock ID'), provides concrete examples showing how parameters combine, and explains filtering logic for the list action.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (create, retrieve, update, delete, list, toggle) and resource (mock endpoints). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mock_invocations or verify_mock by covering comprehensive CRUD operations rather than specific monitoring or verification functions.

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 clear context for when to use different actions (e.g., 'For list, optionally filter by type or enabled status'), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like import_mocks or export_mocks. It gives operational guidance but lacks comparative usage context with siblings.

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