swagger_add_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Add authentication' without explaining side effects, what files are modified, whether the operation is reversible, or what the api_key is used for. The 'Pro feature' note adds licensing context but not behavioral transparency.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the licensing note compactly. It is minimal, though perhaps too terse to cover behavioral and parameter details.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation. The description does not clarify the required directory context, the role of api_key, or the operational impact on the Swagger UI setup. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke this correctly and safely.

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 only 50%: the directory parameter is documented, but api_key has no description. The tool description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to clarify the role of api_key or how directory relates to the operation. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific action ('Add authentication') and a clear target resource ('Swagger UI'), which distinguishes it from siblings like swagger_setup and swagger_customize. The parenthetical '(Pro feature)' adds useful context without obscuring the purpose.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for adding authentication to a Swagger UI setup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like swagger_setup, swagger_customize, or grpcgw_add_swagger, and no mention of conditions or exclusions.

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