apex_add_pareto_chart

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

Annotations are all false, so they do not convey a safety profile (e.g., readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description fails to disclose that this is a mutating operation that modifies the APEX application by adding a chart region. No mention of permissions, side effects, or reversibility, leaving the agent unaware of the tool's impact.

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 of 13 words, efficiently stating the core function and key SQL requirement. It is front-loaded, with no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary details, making it exemplarily 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?

For a tool with 15 parameters, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits any mention of required page_id and region_name, the role of cumulative_sql, or the context of adding a chart within an APEX page. The description relies entirely on the schema for critical context, which is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by stating 'SQL: LABEL, VALUE,' which aligns with the sql_query parameter's example. However, it does not further explain the columns' roles or options like cumulative_sql, so it stays at 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 'Add a Pareto chart (bars + cumulative % line).' This specifies the verb, resource, and unique distinguishing feature (cumulative % line) that separates it from sibling chart tools. The 'SQL: LABEL, VALUE' hint further clarifies the expected input format.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apex_add_combo_chart or apex_add_gauge. It does not mention that a Pareto chart is appropriate for analyzing frequencies in descending order, nor does it suggest any exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual placement.

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