apidog_delete_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only repeats the schema's confirmDelete constraint, which is already visible. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to child items, or whether special permissions are required. 'Requires confirmDelete=true' adds minimal value beyond the structured schema.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action ('Delete a module') before the requirement. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation, though it could include additional safety context without bloating much.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention permanence, effect on dependent data, or what happens on success/failure. The confirmDelete requirement is a useful hint but leaves critical context absent, especially for an AI agent deciding whether this tool is safe to invoke.

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 50% (branchId and projectId have descriptions in the schema, moduleId and confirmDelete do not). The tool description does not explain moduleId or confirmDelete semantics beyond what the schema shows, nor does it mention the fallback behavior for optional parameters. It fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 'Delete a module in an Apidog project' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (module), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_module, update_module, rename_module, and list_modules. It also immediately states the confirmation requirement, making the tool's primary function unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool: when a module needs to be removed from an Apidog project. It also states a necessary precondition (confirmDelete=true) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from update/rename alternatives. The purpose alone makes the use case clear, but there is no comparative context.

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