Swagger: Create API from Prompt

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

The description claims to generate and save an API (a write operation), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. This is a direct contradiction, making the description misleading. As per scoring rules, a contradiction results in score 1.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by parameter details, usage guidance, and return information. It is slightly verbose in repeating enum values but overall efficient and readable.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description covers response codes (201, 200), the 'operation' field, and SwaggerHub URL. It also explains governance integration. The tool has 4 parameters and moderate complexity, and the description adequately addresses the context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the specType enum values with usage examples and providing context for the prompt parameter (e.g., the pet store example). This goes 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 specifies the verb 'Generate and save' and the resource 'API definition' with clear context of using SmartBear AI. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swagger_create_or_update_api by emphasizing AI-powered generation and governance enforcement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool, e.g., 'when creating APIs that comply with governance policies' or 'when users ask to create, generate, or design APIs with governance'. It does not explicitly exclude other tools but implies that alternative tools should be used if no AI or governance is needed.

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