apidog_add_request

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'practical defaults' but does not specify what those defaults are, nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or return values. The mutation nature is implied by 'Create', but key behavioral details are absent.

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 description is a single sentence and is efficient in length. However, it lacks substance and structure, providing minimal information despite being front-loaded. It is concise but under-specifies the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the required parameters, the meaning of the 'practical defaults', or any return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without relying on the schema alone.

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 low (20%), so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any specific parameters or defaults beyond the vague 'practical defaults'. The schema already contains defaults for fields like 'path', 'status', and 'folderId', but the description fails to clarify their use or meaning.

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 clearly states the tool creates an Apidog HTTP request/API detail, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'apidog_create_api_detail' or 'apidog_add_endpoint', and the phrase 'request/API detail' is slightly ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection, leaving the agent without enough information to choose correctly among many similar sibling tools.

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