createMock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive creation operation. The description adds valuable context about UID resolution requirements and workspace placement preferences, but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if creation fails. With annotations covering basic safety, a 3 is appropriate for adding some 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 efficiently structured with bullet points for different scenarios, front-loading the core purpose and following with actionable guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the UID resolution instructions are somewhat lengthy but necessary for this complex parameter requirement.

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 creation tool with 50% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about parameter requirements, workspace placement, and UID resolution. It covers the critical complexities well, though it could benefit from mentioning what the tool returns or any creation constraints beyond the documented parameters.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates significantly by explaining the critical distinction between collection UID vs bare collection ID, providing resolution methods, and emphasizing workspace scoping. While it doesn't detail every parameter (like environment, name, private), it adds essential semantic context for the most complex parameter (collection) that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 action ('Creates a mock server') and the target resource ('in a collection'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createCollection, createEnvironment, or createWorkspace. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including detailed instructions for resolving collection UIDs and workspace scoping. It specifies prerequisites (needing collection UID, not bare ID) and recommends explicit workspace placement, offering clear operational context that helps the agent choose this tool appropriately.

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