import_openapi

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether import is additive or destructive, rate limits, or required permissions. The description only states it imports data, leaving ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose but mixes conditions (prerequisite, input types) without clear structure. It is somewhat concise but could be better organized.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or side effects. It covers input types adequately given the schema's richness, but lacks details on what happens after import (e.g., success indication, error handling).

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining the 'input' parameter's prefixes ('file#' and 'dir#') and noting that paths may include drive letters. This adds value beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the tool imports OpenAPI data into Apifox for generating API documentation. It specifies the input formats (JSON string, directory, file) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on downloading or executing queries.

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 mentions when to use it (when the user explicitly generates API docs) and prerequisites (project ID and API key). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with sibling tools like download_apis.

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