Generate a hosted OpenAPI spec

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool creates a hosted artifact with a public URL and requires an Apiosk provider token. This adds useful auth and output context without contradicting the idempotent/destructively-safe hints from the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action, scope, output, and auth requirement are all front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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 tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers action, input scope, return value, and authorization enough to select and invoke it. The minor ambiguity around title/version parameter semantics is the only noticeable gap, but it does not make the description incomplete for typical use.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by linking the operation to a 'route's API listing' (helping route_id) and implying OpenAPI 3.1 semantics for title/version. However, it does not explicitly describe the title or version parameters, and endpoints is only covered by the schema's own 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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('a hosted OpenAPI 3.1 spec for a route's API listing'), and the expected output ('return its public URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apiosk_get_api or apiosk_publish_api, 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?

It implies the usage context: generate a hosted OpenAPI spec for a route and mentions a required precondition ('Requires an Apiosk provider token'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so selection guidance is mostly left to inference.

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