apex_add_range_chart

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

The description says only 'Add a range chart' and gives SQL column hints, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as page modification, region creation, or prerequisites (e.g., page must exist). Additionally, the description's SQL columns (LOW_VALUE, HIGH_VALUE) conflict with the schema's low_column/high_column defaults (LOW, HIGH), creating ambiguity about expected input.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key SQL requirement. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately 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?

Given 15 parameters, many sibling chart tools, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a range chart is used for (beyond 'min-max bars'), does not mention how it integrates with APEX regions, and the column-name mismatch leaves the tool's distinct behavior underspecified. The schema and annotations cannot compensate for this contextual gap.

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. However, the description's SQL hint (LABEL, LOW_VALUE, HIGH_VALUE) does not match the schema's defaults (low_column default LOW, high_column default HIGH) and the example query in the schema uses LOW/HIGH. This inconsistency undermines the value of the description and could mislead parameter usage.

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 states 'Add a range chart (min-max bars)' with a specific verb (Add) and resource (range chart), and the SQL shape (LABEL, LOW_VALUE, HIGH_VALUE) further distinguishes it from other chart tools. This clearly differentiates it from sibling apex_add_* chart tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases (e.g., showing min-max ranges over time) or distinguish when a range chart is preferred over other chart types. No alternatives are referenced.

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