Import an API spec

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by explaining the mutation model ("merged by method and path; replace swaps the whole list") and a cost side-effect ("May start an AI reading of the API, which uses allowance"). It stops short of stating permissions, reversibility or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight clauses, all front-loaded: what it does, how merging works, then the required prerequisite. No filler or restated name/title.

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 destructive import with no output schema and annotated write behavior, the description covers the merge model, the safety workflow and the cost side-effect. Only the url/content parameter distinction and any failure/partial-import behavior are left unaddressed.

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 only 25% — just `project` carries a description. The description clarifies the semantic effect of `replace` ("swaps the whole list") and implies url/content by naming source document types, but does not disambiguate `url` vs `content` or address the 8MB content cap and merge-vs-replace interplay with the other params. Baseline 3 given partial schema help.

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 and resource ("Saves endpoints into an API project") plus the accepted source formats (OpenAPI, Postman, other documents). The merge-vs-replace clause and the preview_import prerequisite make it clearly distinguishable from its sibling preview_import.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: "Call preview_import first and confirm with the user." It names the alternative tool and the gating condition for proceeding, leaving no inference required.

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