create_api_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it is a single sentence. It conveys that a page is created but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether an existing page with the same title is overwritten or duplicated, or whether swaggerSource must be reachable from the server. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero filler; the verb and object are front-loaded. Every word earns its place and nothing extraneous is included.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a near-twin sibling, the description is too thin. It omits default filter behavior (does omitting filterTags/filterPaths import all endpoints?), the on-success result, and re-run semantics. An agent gets schema help for parameters but no decision help for tool selection or operational expectations.

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 100%: every parameter (swaggerSource, spaceKey, title, filterTags, filterPaths, parentPageId) already carries an inline description, including optionality and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline-3 rule for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Create'), a concrete deliverable ('new API documentation page'), and the input source ('from a Swagger/OpenAPI specification'). The source phrase implicitly distinguishes it from the controller-based sibling create_api_doc_from_controller, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sync_swagger_to_confluence, which also ingests Swagger specs.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. Nothing clarifies whether to prefer this over create_api_doc_from_controller (controller source), update_api_doc (page already exists), or sync_swagger_to_confluence, nor whether re-running creates duplicates. An agent selecting between the two create variants must rely on name-guessing.

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