apidog_wipe

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 explicitly states the operation is irreversible and requires a confirm flag, clearly signaling destructive behavior. This is exactly the kind of warning an agent needs before invoking a bulk-delete 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: two short sentences that convey the core action, safety requirement, and consequence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is actioned, the safety gate, and the irreversibility. It does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether folders are also deleted) or the optional 'project' parameter, but the schema already handles parameter requirements. It is sufficient for most practical uses.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document each field. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema—it references confirm=true but the schema already states 'Must be true to proceed'. No additional syntax, format, or nuanced semantics are provided.

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 verb ('Wipe'), the resource ('endpoints in an Apidog module'), and the scope ('ALL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_delete (which likely targets individual endpoints) and apidog_export (which is non-destructive).

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 by highlighting the 'confirm=true' safety gate and the irreversibility, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., apidog_delete for single endpoints) or when not to use it. The condition 'Requires confirm=true' is a usage gate but not a comparative guideline.

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