apidog_update_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but it does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains. The schema partially covers patch semantics, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first states the general function, the second provides a specific use case; neither is redundant. However, there is no structured breakdown (e.g., prerequisites, examples), so it is efficient but not exemplary in structure.

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 tool with 4 parameters, a nested patch object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It lacks essential context such as how the patch object is applied, whether updates are partial, the role of moduleId, and any return value information. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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%, with patch, branchId, and projectId documented, but moduleId lacks a description. The description adds no parameter-level information and does not compensate for the missing moduleId explanation. It merely restates the general purpose already evident from the tool name and schema.

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's function with a specific verb and resource ('Update module fields') and adds a concrete use case ('Use for renaming modules'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'apidog_rename_module', which likely overlaps in purpose, preventing a higher score.

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 phrase 'Use for renaming modules' provides a specific scenario, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or how it differs from 'apidog_rename_module' or other module-related tools, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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