apidog_delete_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses both the destructive action ('Delete') and a key safety guard ('Refuses if referenced'), which is valuable. It does not detail success/failure responses or reversibility, but the guard is a significant transparency addition beyond the bare action.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and condition. It is well-structured and every word contributes meaning.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and an important safety condition. The complete schema covers parameters. The only minor gap is no mention of return values or error behavior, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage (name, module, project all described), so the schema already provides the needed semantics. The description text adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('component schema'), which is more specific than the sibling apidog_delete. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral constraint ('Refuses if the schema is still referenced by endpoints'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 use for deleting component schemas and provides a clear context for when the operation will fail (if referenced by endpoints). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like apidog_delete or list_schemas, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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