deploy_mock_from_catalog

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint:false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds significant context: the mock persists, gets a stable URL, and the returned sim is in 'deploying' state requiring a follow-up call. It does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or potential naming conflicts, but the added state transition detail is valuable.

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 earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, parameter hints, and follow-up. Front-loaded with the core action and scoping, no filler or repetition.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (deploy, then wait). It explains the async nature and the need for a follow-up. However, it doesn't explain all required parameters, which would be necessary for fully autonomous correct invocation.

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 clarifies `catalog_spec_id` (from list_catalog_products) and `mount_path` (defaults to spec slug) but leaves `name`, `slug`, `domain`, and `version_id` unexplained. Since `name` and `slug` are required, this is a meaningful gap, though not total.

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 specific verb 'Create' and resource: a HOSTED, SHAREABLE mock from a catalog spec on mockzilla.org. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying catalog-based deployment and contrasting with serve_locally, and the mention of catalog_spec_id differentiates it from deploy_mock_from_spec and deploy_mock_from_url.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('durable, team-visible, or reachable from outside their machine') and when NOT to use ('NOT for ephemeral local exploration') with a named alternative (`serve_locally`). Also gives prerequisite guidance to pass `catalog_spec_id` from `list_catalog_products` and instructs the follow-up with `wait_for_deploy`.

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