yapi_update_interface_mock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the update may overwrite existing mock data, that dryRun exists as a preview option, or what effects the update has on the interface. The '普通 Mock' scope note is useful but does not describe the operation's behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no fluff, and its core scope statement is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity leaves out important behavioral and parameter context.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. It does not explain dryRun usage, response body type choices, or JSON Schema mode, making it under-specified for a mutation-style tool.

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 only 17%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the already-described resBody field. Parameters like dryRun, resBodyType, resBodyIsJsonSchema, interfaceId, and projectId remain unexplained by both schema and description.

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 ('更新') applied to a specific resource ('接口返回体文档（普通 Mock）'), and explicitly distinguishes this from advanced mock tooling by saying advanced scripts and expectations should use the corresponding tools. This clearly separates it from siblings like yapi_update_advanced_mock.

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 tells the agent this is for ordinary Mock response body updates only, and that advanced scripts and expectations should go to other tools. It does not name those sibling tools explicitly, but the contrast is clear enough to guide selection.

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