Swagger: Standardize API

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

The description indicates mutation ('automatically fixes them', 'save the fixed definition', 'overwrite the current version'), but annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which implies no modifications. This is a direct contradiction, making the behavioral transparency 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 paragraph followed by a bullet-point parameter list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be shortened by merging the 'Toolset' line, but overall it's effective.

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 the complexity (4 params, no output schema) and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value ('number of errors found and the fixed definition'). It is nearly complete, though the contradiction with annotations undermines its reliability.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that owner, api, version are case-sensitive, and provides a detailed explanation of newVersion with an example and preference for patch bump. This goes beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Standardize and fix an API definition using AI to ensure compliance with governance policies.' It uses specific verbs ('standardize,' 'fix') and resource ('API definition'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like swagger_scan_api_standardization, which likely only scans without fixing.

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 says 'Use this tool when users ask to standardize, fix, govern, or ensure governance compliance of APIs.' It also provides guidance on the newVersion parameter, explaining when to omit or provide it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives.

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