apidog_update_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior that omitted fields are replaced with practical defaults, and that all existing fields must be included to persist. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as return values, side effects, or how nested objects are handled.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It provides the critical preserve-all-fields warning but lacks context about response format, error conditions, project/branch fallbacks, and how to differentiate from sibling update tools. This leaves an agent under-informed for safe and correct 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 only 19%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The general warning to include all fields does not explain what parameters like apiDetailId, moduleId, method, or nested objects like auth and parameters mean or how to construct them. The description fails to compensate for the sparse 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 it updates an Apidog HTTP request/API detail, providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the similarly named sibling apidog_update_api_detail, so it falls short of a 5.

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 instruction 'Include all fields you want preserved' gives crucial usage guidance, implying that omitted fields may be reset to defaults. This effectively communicates when to use the tool versus create operations, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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