Swagger: Standardize API

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it scans and automatically fixes errors, can overwrite the current version, and returns the number of errors and the fixed definition. It also explains the AI-driven nature and version semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sections (toolset, parameter list) and front-loaded key information. It is slightly verbose but justified by the need to explain version behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter list is clear.

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?

The description covers return values (errors and fixed definition), parameter behavior, and usage context. With an output schema present, the description need not detail return format. Annotations provide safety cues. For a tool with 4 parameters and no nested objects, the description is fully complete.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds meaningful guidance for newVersion: 'prefer providing a patch bump (e.g. '1.0.0' → '1.0.1') unless the user specifies otherwise,' which aids parameter selection beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is elevated due to this added context.

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 specifies the verb (standardize/fix), resource (API definition), and toolset (Registry API). It distinguishes from siblings like swagger_scan_api_standardization (which likely only scans) and swagger_create_or_update_api (which creates/updates).

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 the tool: 'Use this tool when users ask to standardize, fix, govern, or ensure governance compliance of APIs.' It also explains version behavior (newVersion vs overwrite). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to differentiate from scanning tools.

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