docs_add_openapi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: all endpoints become searchable documentation, and saved credentials for the host are applied automatically (a real auth-behavior detail). It says nothing about failures on an invalid spec, duplicate-import behavior, or what is returned, so the coverage is partial.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input form, then behavior. Nothing is bloated, though the middle sentence restates the product's core purpose rather than adding selection-relevant information.

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 write-side import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and how it authenticates, but omits return/error behavior and any duplicate or overwrite semantics. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies; there is no compensating value here, but no harm either.

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 gives a specific verb (import) and resource (OpenAPI/Swagger specification) plus the input form (direct JSON URL), so an agent can tell roughly what happens. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling docs_add_swagger, and by calling the resource 'OpenAPI/Swagger' it arguably blurs the two further.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'direct JSON URL' weakly implies this is for a spec URL rather than a site crawl (docs_add_url/docs_add_sitemap), but the agent is left to infer the choice against docs_add_swagger on its own.

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