apidog_create_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Create a module'. It does not disclose whether the operation is mutating, what authentication or project setup is required, what happens on error, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, direct sentence: 'Create a module in an Apidog project.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits return value details, preconditions, and how it relates to similar tools. It does not mention that projectId/branchId can be resolved from apidog.json (that information is only in the schema). Overall, the description is too terse to fully support correct invocation in a broader workflow.

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 covers 67% of parameters (branchId and projectId have descriptions mentioning fallback to apidog.json). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The 'name' parameter is self-explanatory from the tool name and required status, so the gap is minor.

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 action ('Create') and the target resource ('a module in an Apidog project'). It does not get confused with siblings like apidog_list_modules, apidog_update_module, or apidog_rename_module because it specifies creation.

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 such as apidog_update_module or apidog_rename_module. It also does not mention prerequisites or context like needing an existing project (though the schema hints at fallback behavior).

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