apex_update_page

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), providing no implicit safety profile. The description only states that it updates properties, but does not disclose behavior such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether updates are reversible, or whether any fields will be overwritten. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point and is easily skimmable. Every word earns its place.

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 (6 params, output schema present) and the schema's high coverage, the description provides a sufficient high-level purpose. However, it lacks operational context: no mention of the need for at least one new_* field to be set, no note about update semantics on existing values, and no indication of what the output contains (though output schema may cover this). It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal value by naming a few properties (title, mode, auth) but omits 'new_name'. It does not clarify the null semantics (e.g., default null meaning 'no update' vs 'set to null'), though the schema hints at this. 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('page properties') within an existing app, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apex_update_region or apex_update_item. It also enumerates the key properties (title, mode, auth), which aligns with the input schema.

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 context: use when updating page-level properties in an existing app. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., app/page must exist), or alternatives like apex_add_page for creating pages. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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