yapi_call_mock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool performs a request to a mock URL and checks whether a write took effect, which is useful. It does not disclose how method/body affect the request, whether the response is returned, or any side-effect/authorization implications, so transparency is partial.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is concise but slightly under-specified, which is an issue for completeness rather than for this dimension.

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?

Context is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. Missing details include how to construct the request, the role of projectId/interfaceId, the meaning of method/body, and what the returned confirmation looks like. The description gives only the high-level purpose.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies mockUrl through '请求 mock URL'; body, method, projectId, and interfaceId are left to name-based inference. This is insufficient for correct invocation, especially with no required parameters and no descriptions.

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 ('请求 mock URL') and a clear purpose ('确认写入是否生效'), identifying both resource and expected outcome. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like yapi_update_interface_mock and yapi_list_mock_cases because it invokes the mock URL rather than managing configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings, and '写入' is slightly vague without context.

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 phrase '确认写入是否生效' implies this tool should be used after a mock write/update to verify the change, providing clear contextual timing. It does not state explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which another sibling tool would be preferred, leaving some inference required.

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