Update a mock server

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining how to activate or deactivate a server response via config.serverResponseId, without contradicting the 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 three short, front-loaded bullet lines with no filler. Each sentence contributes distinct operational information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and schema, the description adequately covers the target resource, updatable fields, and the non-obvious server response activation mechanism. It does not explain partial-versus-full update semantics or return value, but the schema and annotations fill most remaining context.

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 descriptions already cover most parameter meanings, including the null-deactivation behavior for serverResponseId. The tool description mostly restates these semantics rather than adding new meaning, though it does highlight the primary updatable fields and the collection-UID association.

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 'Updates a mock server' and clarifies the resource as a mock server associated with a collection UID. It names concrete updatable aspects (name, environment, privacy, default server response), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like createMock, getMock, and publishMock.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to change name, environment, privacy, or default server response.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not name alternative tools or include explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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