apex_add_alert_box

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add' without explaining side effects, such as whether it creates a new region, whether changes are reversible, or how it interacts with the page's existing layout. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key differentiator (alert types). There is no wasted text; 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?

With 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but the schema fills in parameter details. However, it lacks broader context such as typical use cases, how the alert box appears on the page, or how it relates to page design workflow. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent needing high-level context.

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 baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions title, message, and types, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No extra syntactical or semantic detail is provided, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('styled alert box'), and specifies the supported types (info/success/warning/error) and that it includes title and message. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notification_region or add_hero_banner by naming the exact component type.

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 (when you need an alert box) but does not explicitly state when to use it over other components like notifications or banners. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it meets only the 'implied usage' level.

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