Create a mock server (provide collection UID)

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral requirement: the collection property must be a UID (ownerId-collectionId), not a bare ID, and gives two ways to resolve it. It also clarifies workspace placement, going beyond the structured annotation data.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses short actionable bullets for UID resolution and workspace guidance. Every line earns its place: the UID requirement is essential, the resolution steps are compact, and the workspace preference is a one-line reinforcement.

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 schema fully documents the mock/name/private/environment fields and the description covers the non-obvious UID requirement and workspace handling, the agent has everything needed to construct a valid call. No output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description closes the main correctness gap left by the schema.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description materially enriches the `collection` parameter by warning that bare IDs are wrong and explaining how to derive the UID. It also upgrades `workspace` from a simple ID to a placement scoping hint with the instruction to prefer explicit workspace scoping. This adds high-value meaning beyond the JSON Schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Creates a mock server in a collection,' a clear verb-resource statement that identifies the tool's core action. The title and description together differentiate createMock from the sibling updateMock, publishMock, getMock, and getMocks.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance by requiring the collection UID and providing a resolution path (GET /collections/{id}, GET /me) and by recommending explicit workspace scoping. It does not explicitly say 'use updateMock when the server already exists,' so it misses formal alternative comparison, but it is far above merely implied usage.

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