Swagger: Create Documentation Page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: supported content types, the source/contentType compatibility constraint, and the fact that the response includes page location details and a draftUrl. This goes beyond what the annotations state.

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 lead sentence is excellent and front-loaded, but the description then repeats the entire schema as a parameter list, which is redundant given the high schema coverage. It is well-structured but not concise; the parameter bullets could be trimmed or omitted without losing information.

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 9-parameter create tool, the description is complete: it identifies required and optional parameters, explains the contentType/source interaction, and summarizes the return values (productId, sectionId, slug, draftUrl). The output details are especially useful since they tell the agent what to expect without needing to infer from an output 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter list essentially restates the schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation; the description provides no additional semantic value for parameters beyond what is already structured.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a documentation page in a portal product in a single tool call.' It also names the supported content types and the return payload, which clearly differentiates this creation action from sibling tools like swagger_get_document, swagger_update_document, and swagger_create_portal_product.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when creating a new documentation page in a portal product. It does not explicitly contrast with update or get sibling tools, but the creation intent is unambiguous and the constraint that 'html + internal is not supported' helps avoid a known failure mode.

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