apex_add_region

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

Annotations provide no safety signals (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add a region', which implies a mutation but does not disclose any side effects such as persistence, permission requirements, or consequences of adding a region with an existing name. For a write operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 primary action. It is concise and easy to parse. However, the types list is redundant with the schema and omits many valid types, so it does not fully earn 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many region types) and rich schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the breadth of region types or provide guidance on when to use specific types, and the partial list could mislead an agent into thinking only those types exist. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a concern, but the overall context is inadequate.

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 even without parameter info in the description. The description's list of types adds some context for the region_type parameter, but it is incomplete and slightly inaccurate, offering marginal value beyond the schema.

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 tool's action: 'Add a region to a page.' This is a specific verb+resource+target that distinguishes it from sibling tools like apex_add_item or apex_add_page. However, the list of types ('STATIC, IR, PLSQL, chart, blank') is incomplete and includes 'blank', which does not appear in the schema's region_type enum, slightly muddying the clarity.

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 phrase 'Add a region' implies usage for creating regions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apex_update_region or apex_delete_region. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage largely implied.

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