apidog_update_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that null values remove fields and that the patch goes through export-modify-validate-import, but it omits critical side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, and response behavior for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise, a single sentence that front-loads the core action and key behavior. However, it is too terse for a tool with 12 parameters and nested options, and it sacrifices necessary detail in favor of brevity.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many parameters, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, the actual processing workflow, or any of the important option fields, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely and correctly.

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 25% (3 of 12 parameters have descriptions). The description adds the important nuance that null values remove fields for the patch parameter, but it does not compensate for the other undocumented parameters like path, method, options, branchId, or projectId, leaving significant gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'patch' and identifies the resource as 'an existing endpoint operation', which is clear. It hints at a workflow (export-modify-validate-import) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like upsert_endpoint or patch_openapi, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_endpoint, upsert_endpoint, delete_endpoint, or patch_openapi. It implies the endpoint exists, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool selection criteria.

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