swagger_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important behavioral fact that the operation returns a structured Markdown API Reference. With no output schema, this disclosure is genuinely valuable. It doesn't cover failure behavior for unreachable URLs or malformed specs, which keeps it below 5.

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?

A single sentence with the verb, both input modes and the output form front-loaded; nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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 three-optional-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers sources and the return format, which is what an agent needs to decide and invoke. Minor gaps: no note on mutual exclusivity of url vs filePath or on the confirmFileAccess requirement beyond the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'local file or remote URL' at a high level without adding format or constraint detail, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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?

States a specific verb ('Import') plus the resources ('API routes and schemas') and both source types (local file / remote URL), which clearly separates it from siblings like postman_import. It stops short of naming postman_import as the alternative importer, so the differentiation is by resource name rather than an explicit sibling reference.

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 when to use it (when you have a Swagger/OpenAPI spec, local or remote), but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never contrasts with postman_import, the closest sibling. The 'filePath requires confirmFileAccess' prerequisite lives only in the schema, not the description.

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