apidog_import_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior not present in the schema: "exports current spec first and merges." However, it remains silent on the destructive replace mode (mergeWithExisting=false), the runtime meaning of overwriteBehavior, and validation/error behavior for partial specs.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct weight: core action, key merge behavior, then usage guidance. Zero filler, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 3-param tool with a nested object, an uninterpreted enum, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and merge semantics but leaves overwriteBehavior's three opaque enum values unexplained and gives no indication of what a successful import returns or confirms. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67% — spec and mergeWithExisting are already documented there. The description adds one useful nuance (export-before-merge) but does nothing to explain overwriteBehavior, the single parameter lacking a schema description, nor how it interacts with mergeWithExisting. At 67% coverage the description should compensate further than it does.

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?

"Import a full or partial OpenAPI spec" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and scope. The usage line ("bulk updates or importing from external sources") implies differentiation from the endpoint-level upsert siblings, though it never names them, so it stops short of the explicit sibling-routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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?

"Use for bulk updates or importing from external sources like Scramble" provides clear context for when this tool is the right choice, implicitly contrasting with targeted endpoint upserts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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