apidog_patch_openapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states the sequence 'validate, then import' which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention that importing may overwrite existing endpoints or resources, nor any prerequisites like project configuration. The schema options (e.g., deleteUnmatchedResources, OVERWRITE_EXISTING) hint at destructive behavior, but the description omits this.

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 of 11 words, front-loading the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is complex with 10 parameters, nested options, and no output schema. The description is too minimal: it does not explain the full workflow (whether it exports the current spec or expects an input), prerequisites, potential side effects, or error behavior. The sparse description is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 20% (only branchId and projectId have descriptions). The tool description mentions 'RFC 6902 JSON Patch', which gives context for the patch parameter, but it does not explain the many options (schemaOverwriteBehavior, endpointOverwriteBehavior, deleteUnmatchedResources, etc.). With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 applies an RFC 6902 JSON Patch to exported OpenAPI, validates it, then imports it. It uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('exported OpenAPI'), and the combined validate-import sequence distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_validate_openapi and apidog_import_openapi.

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 the tool is for patching an exported OpenAPI and then importing it, which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with using separate export, validate, and import tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It provides just enough context to infer usage.

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