apidog_create_api_detail_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create', which implies a mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, branch/project fallback behavior, or what happens on success. Minimal behavioral information is conveyed.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified and essentially repeats the tool name, which undermines the value of the sentence. It is not misleading, but it does not enrich understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about the folder's purpose, required context (e.g., moduleId), optional fields (branches, parents), and any nesting or fallback behavior, making it inadequate for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 only 33%, and the tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever. It does not explain the meaning or usage of moduleId, parentId, type, or other fields, leaving a significant gap for the agent to interpret the 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?

The description 'Create an API detail folder' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'apidog_create_api_detail_folder', making it tautological. It does not add detail about what an 'API detail folder' is or how it differs from creating a module or API detail, so it fails to distinguish from 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apidog_create_module or apidog_create_api_detail. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without direction.

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