apidog_delete_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description reveals a non-obvious implementation detail: deletion happens by exporting the spec, removing the endpoint, and re-importing. It also guarantees other endpoints are unaffected. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility or potential side effects on related schemas or responses.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and then add the important side-effect detail. Exactly a concise, well-structured definition with no wasted words.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the core mechanism and the all-else-unchanged guarantee, but it omits parameter semantics, irreversibility, and what happens if the endpoint doesn't exist. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description does not explain that method and path identify the endpoint to remove. While the parameter names and enum make their role inferable, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

States the specific verb 'Remove' and resource 'endpoint from Apidog'. The phrase 'All other endpoints remain untouched' clarifies scope and distinguishes it from bulk reorganization tools. The operation is unambiguous even without reading sibling definitions.

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 implies use when an endpoint needs to be deleted, and the 'all other endpoints remain untouched' caveat sets an expectation, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over upsert or export/import alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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