Bug: [BUG] Various errors in `rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml`



### Bug Description

The two identical files [`api-reference/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml`](https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/d06d19fc96e1a74d20e2fe3613f86d541947e0ae/api-reference/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml) and [`api-reference-v2/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml`](https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/d06d19fc96e1a74d20e2fe3613f86d541947e0ae/api-reference-v2/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml) contain some mistakes and errors.

### Expected Behavior

The documentation should be clear.

### Actual Behavior

The documentation contains some errors.

### Steps To Reproduce

Not relevant.

### Context For The Bug

Some examples:
https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/d06d19fc96e1a74d20e2fe3613f86d541947e0ae/api-reference/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml#L5
https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/d06d19fc96e1a74d20e2fe3613f86d541947e0ae/api-reference/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml#L12
https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/d06d19fc96e1a74d20e2fe3613f86d541947e0ae/api-reference/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml#L14
https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/d06d19fc96e1a74d20e2fe3613f86d541947e0ae/api-reference/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml#L42


### Environment

Not relevant.

### Have you spent some time checking if this bug has been raised before?

- [X] I checked and didn't find a similar issue

### Have you read the Contributing Guidelines?

- [X] I have read the [Contributing Guidelines](https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/main/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md)

### Are you willing to submit a PR?

Yes, I am willing to submit a PR!
diff --git a/api-reference-v2/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml b/api-reference-v2/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml
index 729886d9cd0..17a19fec44d 100644
--- a/api-reference-v2/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml
+++ b/api-reference-v2/rust_locker_open_api_spec.yml
@@ -2,16 +2,16 @@ openapi: "3.0.2"
 info:
   title: Tartarus - OpenAPI 3.0
   description: |-
-    This the the open API 3.0 specification for the card locker.
+    This is the OpenAPI 3.0 specification for the card locker.
     This is used by the [hyperswitch](https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch) for storing card information securely.
   version: "1.0"
 tags:
   - name: Key Custodian
     description: API used to initialize the locker after deployment.
   - name: Data
-    description: CRUD APIs to for working with data to be stored in the locker
+    description: CRUD APIs for working with data to be stored in the locker
   - name: Cards
-    description: CRUD APIs to for working with cards data to be stored in the locker (deprecated)
+    description: CRUD APIs for working with cards data to be stored in the locker (deprecated)
 paths:
   /custodian/key1:
     post:
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ paths:
       tags:
         - Key Custodian
       summary: Provide Key 2
-      description: Provide the first key to unlock the locker
+      description: Provide the second key to unlock the locker
       operationId: setKey2
       requestBody:
         description: Provide key 2 to unlock the locker

## Type of Change
<!-- Put an `x` in the boxes that apply -->

- [ ] Bugfix
- [ ] New feature
- [ ] Enhancement
- [ ] Refactoring
- [ ] Dependency updates
- [x] Documentation
- [ ] CI/CD

## Description
<!-- Describe your changes in detail -->
Improved wording in the edit files.


### Additional Changes

- [ ] This PR modifies the API contract
- [ ] This PR modifies the database schema
- [ ] This PR modifies application configuration/environment variables

<!--
Provide links to the files with corresponding changes.

Following are the paths where you can find config files:
1. `config`
2. `crates/router/src/configs`
3. `loadtest/config`
-->


## Motivation and Context
<!--
Why is this change required? What problem does it solve?
If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here.

If you don't have an issue, we'd recommend starting with one first so the PR
can focus on the implementation (unless it is an obvious bug or documentation fix
that will have little conversation).
-->
Fixes #6321.

## How did you test it?
<!--
Did you write an integration/unit/API test to verify the code changes?
Or did you test this change manually (provide relevant screenshots)?
-->
Manually inspected the changed files.


## Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in the boxes that apply -->

- [ ] I formatted the code `cargo +nightly fmt --all`
- [ ] I addressed lints thrown by `cargo clippy`
- [x] I reviewed the submitted code
- [ ] I added unit tests for my changes where possible
