updateMock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds context about what fields can be changed, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized with two bullet points, front-loading the main action and listing modifiable fields. However, the second bullet point could be more structured (e.g., using commas instead of 'or' for clarity).

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and modifiable fields but lacks details on prerequisites, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool without annotations covering those aspects.

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 50%, with the 'mock' object having detailed parameter descriptions but 'mockId' lacking context. The description mentions changing 'name, environment, privacy, or default server response', which partially maps to the 'mock' object parameters, adding some meaning beyond the schema but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('a mock server'), and specifies what can be changed (name, environment, privacy, default server response). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateSpecFile' or 'updateWorkspace' beyond mentioning the mock server resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createMock' for initial creation or 'getMock' for retrieval. It mentions the resource is 'associated with a collection UID' but doesn't explain prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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