Preview an API 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's "nothing is saved" usefully reinforces that no state is mutated and implies network fetching for the URL form, but adds nothing about failure modes, size limits, or partial-parse behavior beyond what structured fields give.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the most decision-relevant fact (read-only, nothing saved) is front-loaded before the format list and outcome.

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 read-only, fully-annotated tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns at a summary level. It could be stronger by contrasting with import_spec or noting the response shape, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema documents url, content and project itself. The description's "given as text or a URL" only restates the two input modes already encoded in the schema, adding no new syntax, exclusivity rule, or format guidance.

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 (preview/parse) and resource (OpenAPI/Swagger/Postman/Insomnia/HAR/GraphQL/cURL document) and immediately scopes it as non-persisting ("Read-only (nothing is saved)"). The phrase "says what an import into the project would add" cleanly separates it from the sibling import_spec without needing the schema.

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 "nothing is saved" framing and "what an import would add" make the use case clear: dry-run before importing. However, it never names the alternative (import_spec) or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the routing to the write-side sibling is left to inference.

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