apidog_import_openapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Validate and import', which is a minimal description of the operation. It fails to disclose that importing can overwrite existing endpoints (via 'endpointOverwriteBehavior'), delete unmatched resources ('deleteUnmatchedResources'), or perform other side effects. The description is not misleading, but it is highly incomplete.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word is relevant, making it highly efficient even though it is minimal.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides the high-level action. It omits essential context such as how the validation behaves, the fallback behavior for projectId/branchId (partially covered in schema), potential side effects, and required setup. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Only 40% of the parameters have descriptions in the schema (branchId and projectId), and the description text adds no parameter semantics at all. The nested 'options' object with its many properties is entirely undocumented, and the description fails to compensate for this low coverage.

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 uses specific verbs 'Validate and import' with the resource 'OpenAPI' into 'Apidog', clearly stating the tool's core action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'apidog_validate_openapi', which also validates, or 'apidog_patch_openapi', which may have overlapping import-like functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that validation-only is available via 'apidog_validate_openapi' or mention any prerequisites, so the agent has no context for tool selection.

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