apex_add_kpi_row

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

Annotations are all false and do not convey a safety profile; the description at least reveals this is an additive mutation ('Add ... KPI cards') and mentions the card fields. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like whether an existing region is replaced, whether CSS/style blocks are modified, or any idempotency/reversibility concerns.

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 that front-loads the primary action and object. It contains no filler and is immediately understandable, making it highly concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema covers most parameters. Still, the tool description has the icon/suffix mismatch, omits optional parameters, and gives no contextual guidance relative to other KPI/metric tools, leaving moderate gaps in fully understanding the tool's behavior.

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 already documents most parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description lists 'icon' as a card key, while the schema's metric object documents 'label', 'sql', 'suffix', and 'color' but not 'icon'. This inconsistency may mislead the agent into constructing metrics incorrectly and reduces clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resources ('horizontal row of KPI cards'), with a compact structure hint. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like apex_add_metric_cards or apex_add_stat_delta.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the action and card format, implying usage from the tool name, but lacks any explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling add_* tools.

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