apidog_propose_reorganization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that nothing is applied yet, that this is a DRY-RUN plan, and that user validation is mandatory before applying. These are the key non-destructive behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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?

The most important behavior is front-loaded, and the strategy details are organized as clear bullets. The only minor issue is a slight repetition of the confirmation requirement:“user MUST validate before calling apply” and “ALWAYS present the plan... before applying” say largely the same thing.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, strategies, custom mappings, and required user confirmation workflow. It could more concretely describe the returned plan's structure, but an agent still has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

The schema already documents all 5 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the three strategy options with examples and clarifying that custom Mapping can override path prefixes. That extra context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Propose a better folder organization for all endpoints." It immediately clarifies the dry-run nature and explicitly names the paired apply tool, so an agent can distinguish this from apidog_apply_reorganization and other sibling tools.

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 explicitly says the user MUST validate the plan before calling apidog_apply_reorganization and ALWAYS present the plan and ask for confirmation. This gives clear usage context and the required workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like analyze_folders, but the dry-run-to-apply flow is clear.

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