apidog_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a non-trivial mechanism: it exports the current spec, removes the target, and reimports with deleteUnmatchedResources. This alerts the agent to potential side effects (e.g., deleting other unmatched resources), which is valuable behavioral transparency, though it stops short of explicitly warning about risks if the spec is stale.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys both the operation and the underlying process without redundant phrasing.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the action and its side-effect-laden mechanism. The schema covers all parameters, and the behavior is disclosed. It does not describe return values, but that is less critical for a delete operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it mentions 'deleteUnmatchedResources' as part of the process, but this is an internal behavior, not a parameter explanation. No further parameter details are needed beyond what the schema 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 opens with 'Delete an endpoint from Apidog,' which is a specific verb + resource that clearly states the tool's function. The additional mechanism detail (export spec, remove target, reimport) further distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_delete_schema or apidog_wipe, even though no explicit comparison is made.

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 usage is for deleting a single endpoint, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apidog_wipe or apidog_delete_schema. The mechanism described (export/reimport) hints at a spec-based workflow, but no clear 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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