Publish a mock server

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

The description discloses the side effect of setting Access Control to public, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations that only indicate mutability. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences: one for the primary action and one for the key side effect. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 description provides sufficient context for a simple operation: it states what it does and the main effect (setting access control to public). It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists, and the information given is adequate for the tool's purpose.

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?

The schema already fully describes the mockId parameter with 'The mock's ID.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Publishes a mock server.' The verb 'publishes' and resource 'mock server' are specific, and the tool is distinguishable from siblings like createMock or getMock.

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 implies usage when you want to make a mock public (by setting access control to public) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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