apex_update_region

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds little beyond the word 'update'. It doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if the region or app doesn't exist. Given minimal annotation coverage, the description should provide more context but doesn't.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative by listing all key updateable fields without becoming overly long.

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 has 10 parameters, 3 required, and many sibling update/add/delete tools, the description is too sparse to provide enough context for correct selection. It doesn't explain the full range of updates, prerequisites, or how it fits into the broader workflow. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the lack of usage and behavioral guidance.

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%, with each of the 10 parameters having its own description. The tool description itself doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining which parameters are mutually exclusive or how condition type/expression are related, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool updates a region's SQL source, title, or template, which identifies the verb and resource. However, it only names a subset of the actual updateable fields (e.g., omits sequence, auth scheme, conditions, static content), so it doesn't fully capture the tool's scope or clearly distinguish it from sibling update tools like apex_update_item or apex_update_page.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apex_add_region or apex_update_page. It only implies usage for updating an existing region, without any exclusions, prerequisites, or reference to sibling tools.

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