apex_add_ribbon_stats

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it inserts or updates a region, permissions needed, or interactions with existing page elements). It does not contradict the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. No filler words or redundant information; every word earns 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?

The tool is fairly complex with six parameters, but the description is only one line. The output schema helps clarify return values, yet the description omits any prerequisites, side effects, or usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the schema and sibling tool names.

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 provides high coverage (83%) with detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the small gap (e.g., custom_css details are only in 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 action 'Add' and the resource: a horizontal ribbon of stat cards. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the layout ('horizontal ribbon') and element type ('stat cards with icons and colors').

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 compared to the many sibling tools for adding stat cards, KPI rows, or metric cards. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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