openapi_generate_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a 'Pro feature' and that it generates files, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what side effects occur in the project directory, or what authentication/entitlement behavior is required.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the core action and input are stated immediately.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear how the required directory relates to the OpenAPI spec, whether the operation writes or overwrites files, and what the api_key parameter is for. An agent would struggle to call this correctly with confidence.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter guidance. The relation between the required 'directory' parameter and the 'OpenAPI spec' mentioned in the description is unexplained, and the 'api_key' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 names a specific action (generate), a concrete deliverable (server stubs), and an input source (OpenAPI spec). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like openapi_generate_client and openapi_generate_types, which serve different purposes.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need server stubs generated from an OpenAPI specification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as openapi_generate_client, openapi_generate_types, or sdk_from_openapi, leaving routing to inference.

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