testneo_api_project_upload_openapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals it is a write operation (stores spec) and that confirmation is needed ('confirm=true'). However, it does not describe idempotency behavior, error handling, or what happens if a spec already exists. The backend endpoint is mentioned but rate limits or auth requirements are not.

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 concise at three sentences with no verbosity. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be better structured by explicitly listing parameters or behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description should cover return values or side effects, but it does not. It also omits error scenarios, idempotency, and parameter details. For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, leaving the description to explain parameters, but it does not. It mentions 'multipart field: file' but does not map to the actual parameters (openapi_file_base64, openapi_filename). The confirm parameter is hinted at via 'confirm=true' but not explained. project_id and idempotency_key are entirely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 action ('Upload OpenAPI JSON/YAML to a classic API project') and the resource affected ('stores spec on Project.openapi_spec'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool by explicitly saying 'Use before testneo_api_project_openapi_impact.'

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 gives explicit usage context: it should be used before testneo_api_project_openapi_impact. It also notes the guarded nature ('allow-write + confirm=true'), which informs the agent that confirmation is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling.

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