Update a mock server

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining how setting `config.serverResponseId` activates a server response and passing `null` deactivates it. 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 compact, uses bullet points for scannability, and front-loads the core purpose. Every line carries useful information: the resource, the actionable fields, and the special activation behavior. There is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter update tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the essential operational context. It explains what can be updated and the key behavioral nuance for `serverResponseId`, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description's activation/deactivation note largely repeats the schema text for `serverResponseId`, adding no significant semantic information beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific action ('Updates a mock server') and a specific resource ('Mock server entity associated with a collection UID'). It also enumerates the fields that can be changed, making its purpose clear and distinct from creation, publishing, or other mock-related operations.

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 says 'Use this to change name, environment, privacy, or default server response,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to createMock or publishMock, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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