apple_update_custom_product_page_version

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals a mutation ('Change') and an 'editable' precondition, but says nothing about permissions, whether the change requires re-review or submission, whether it affects live versions, or what happens on rejection.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (one field on one version type) is immediately clear.

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 and no output schema, the description omits key operational context such as the editable-state requirement details and side effects. It does at least scope the tool to a single field change, which is the minimum an agent needs to call it.

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 coverage is 0%, but schema itself declares both fields and a URI format for deepLink. The description adds meaning via the 'editable' qualifier on the version, though it does not explain the deepLink format expectations or how to obtain a valid versionId beyond what the schema gives.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it changes the deep link of a custom product page version, which distinguishes it from apple_update_custom_product_page (the page) and apple_create_custom_product_page_version. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 word 'editable' implies a precondition and thus suggests when the call is valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling version-creation tool, and no statement of what to do if the version is not editable.

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