deploy_mock_from_url

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the server fetches the spec (with SSRF protection), parses it, returns the sim in a `deploying` state, and requires a follow-up call. This gives the agent real operational context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: core action, usage condition + alternative, and required follow-up. There is no repetition or filler despite the richness of the context.

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?

The core invocation path is fully covered: source format, URL requirements, target platform, deploy state, and next action. The only gap is the lack of explanation for optional parameters (`domain`, `mount_path`) and not naming `deploy_mock_from_spec`/`deploy_mock_from_catalog` as related alternatives, but these are secondary to 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%, but the description only clarifies `spec_url` (public https URL). It does not explain `slug`, `domain`, or `mount_path`, and those optional parameters are otherwise undocumented in the schema. The required `name` and `slug` are somewhat self-evident, but an agent has to guess at the behavior of the optional fields.

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?

Names a specific action ('Create', a hosted mock), a target resource (mockzilla.org, durable/team-visible), and a precise input ('OpenAPI 3.0+ spec at a public https URL'). It immediately distinguishes this from local/exploratory use, so an agent can tell it apart from serve_locally without deeper inspection.

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 states when to use it (user has a spec URL AND wants a durable, team-visible result) and when not to (ephemeral local exploration), naming the alternative tool serve_locally. It also instructs the agent to follow up with wait_for_deploy, which is essential for completing the workflow.

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