apex_add_interactive_grid

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

The description discloses core behavioral traits (editable, add row), but annotations provide no safety hints (all false). It does not mention side effects like modifying the page, creating a region, or potential overwrite risks. Since annotations are silent, the description only partially carries the burden of behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and core features. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant content.

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 8-parameter complexity and a rich output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview of the tool's purpose and key features. It doesn't explain custom SQL or DML operations, but those are covered in the schema. For a tool with this many siblings, a bit more context on when to choose IG over other region types would improve completeness, though it is already adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'inline editing' and 'add row' align with the 'editable' and 'add_row' parameters, but it doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It lacks extra context like SQL override or DML behavior.

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 ('Interactive Grid'), with a clarifying parenthetical '(editable spreadsheet)' that distinguishes it from other region/chart tools. The mention of 'inline editing' and 'add row' further differentiates it from siblings like apex_add_region or apex_add_jet_chart.

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 through key features ('Supports inline editing + add row') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is indirect.

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