apidog_update_api_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'raw Apidog form fields' and the preference for a full detail body, but does not disclose whether the update is a full replacement or partial merge, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an update tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise usage tip. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description offers helpful guidance to use a full detail body, but it lacks critical context such as whether the update replaces the entire object, what the response looks like, and any error conditions. It is adequately informative but not fully complete for confident 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 75%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by implying that apiDetail should be a full detail body from apidog_get_http_api, which is useful, but it does not meaningfully explain the fallback behavior of branchId/projectId or other parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update an Apidog API detail') and the resource ('API detail'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/update request. The mention of 'raw Apidog form fields' and the explicit preference for using output from apidog_get_http_api further clarifies its specific role.

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 clear usage guidance by recommending 'passing a full detail body from apidog_get_http_api', which tells the agent how to prepare the request. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for similar operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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