apex_update_item

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

Annotations already indicate that this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description does not need to cover those basics. It adds value by listing some updatable attributes, but it does not disclose important behaviors like whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, whether new_lov_definition only applies to select lists, or whether changing the item type has cascading effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is not bloated, but it is so terse that it omits several updatable fields, making it less helpful than a slightly longer description would be.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description lacks context for a complex tool with 11 parameters and 3 required fields. It does not explain how to locate an item (app/page/item_name), the behavior of null parameters, or constraints like new_lov_definition being for select lists only. This could lead an agent to misuse the tool.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of LOV, label, type, and default adds little beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify the optional null semantics or how the new_* parameters interact with existing item settings.

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 (update) and the resource (an item in an existing app), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apex_add_item, apex_delete_item, and apex_update_region. It enumerates a few key properties (LOV, label, type, default), which gives a quick sense of the tool's scope, though it omits other fields like read-only, required, and placeholder.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apex_add_item, apex_update_region, or apex_describe_page). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the app/page/item to exist, or when to use a different update approach.

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