deploy_mock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral impacts: bumping configVersion and invalidating edge caches, which are important for understanding side effects. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but given the simple action, it provides adequate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every part adds value. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operation, its purpose, and side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks return value details.

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 only parameter, endpointId, has a schema description ('The mock endpoint ID to deploy') that already conveys its meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 it publishes a mock endpoint's rule set to the live server, specifying the action ('Publish'), the resource ('current rule set of a mock endpoint'), and the effect ('bumps the configVersion and invalidates edge caches'). Among siblings like add_mock_rule and create_mock_endpoint, it uniquely identifies the deployment action.

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 need to make rule changes live, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings. However, the context (siblings include add_mock_rule, list_mock_endpoints) makes the purpose clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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