apply_item_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Apply...' without explaining that this is a mutating operation, whether permissions are required, if it is reversible, or what happens when applied. The lack of safety or side-effect details is a significant 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, short sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Apply', making it immediately clear what action the tool performs. There is zero waste.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description lacks essential context: it does not state what applying entails, how to obtain the previewId, what the success/failure behavior is, or any side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 has one required parameter (previewId) with 0% description coverage. The description hints at the concept of 'previously previewed' but does not explicitly explain that previewId is the identifier returned from preview_item_update. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema and does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Apply') and the specific resource ('previously previewed item update'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_view_update or preview_item_update. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and effectively communicates the tool's role.

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 phrase 'previously previewed' implies the tool must be used after preview_item_update, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use apply_list_update for list updates' or 'do not use this for creating items.'

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