apple_update_custom_product_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real side effect — a hidden page stops serving its URL — which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. However, it omits whether this is a partial update (unlisted fields untouched), whether visibility can be re-enabled, permission/auth needs, and what a rename affects downstream.

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?

A single economical sentence that front-loads the two capabilities, with the parenthetical adding real semantic value rather than padding. Slightly compressed phrasing but no wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition is thin: partial-update semantics, pageId sourcing, reversibility of hiding a page, and auth requirements are all absent. An agent could invoke it but not confidently predict the outcome.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to 'name' (rename) and 'visible' (visibility toggle with its effect), covering two of three params, but says nothing about 'pageId' — the sole required parameter — its format, or where to source it, and never states that omitted optional params leave existing values unchanged.

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 names a specific verb pair (rename / switch visibility) and a specific resource (a custom product page), which lets an agent separate it from apple_create_custom_product_page, apple_delete_custom_product_page, and the *_custom_product_page_version siblings. It is clear without explicitly naming the siblings it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing pageId obtained from apple_list_custom_product_pages), and no routing between this tool and apple_update_custom_product_page_version or apple_update_custom_product_page_localization. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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