apidog_apply_reorganization

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it never explicitly states that applying the plan mutates folders/endpoints, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. The 'user approved' guardrail is useful but does not disclose the tool's operational behavior.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and object, the second gives the critical precondition. The most important constraint is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient: it names the source array, the expected shape, and the approval precondition. It could add one sentence about the mutating effect or error behavior, but nothing essential is missing for constructing a correct call.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes changes as the proposal array where each entry moves an endpoint. The description's mention of the propose tool adds provenance, but it mostly restates the schema without adding new format, constraints, or defaults.

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 names the exact action ('apply'), the specific resource ('folder reorganization plan'), and distinguishes it from the sibling apidog_propose_reorganization by requiring the plan to be 'previously proposed and user-validated'. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives a clear invocation condition: only after the user has explicitly approved the plan, and it points to the source of the changes array from apidog_propose_reorganization. This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool versus merely proposing changes.

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