updateMock

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

Annotations already convey idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds marginal behavioral disclosure beyond listing updatable fields. It does not detail side effects like the impact of toggling private or changing environment. Thus, the description's added value is limited.

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?

Description is exceptionally concise: two lines, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, followed by a focused list of updatable fields. No superfluous information.

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 nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits details like handling of null serverResponseId (deactivation) and the requirement for the collection field. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description summarizes key updatable parameters (name, environment, privacy, server response) consistent with the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the mockId parameter or nested structure beyond what schema already provides, offering moderate added meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'Updates a mock server.' and lists specific updatable attributes (name, environment, privacy, default server response). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createMock, getMock, publishMock, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly advises when to use: 'Use this to change name, environment, privacy, or default server response.' This provides clear context for usage. However, it lacks exclusionary guidance or comparison with sibling tools, e.g., when to prefer publishMock.

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