apex_add_search_bar

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search bar filters via a Dynamic Action and implies a page modification, but it does not mention side effects like potential duplicate regions, dependencies on the IR region's structure, or reversibility. This provides some useful behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has a rich input schema (7 params, 100% covered) and an output schema, the one-line description is mostly sufficient for selecting and invoking it. It clearly states the core functionality and the mechanism, though it omits any edge-case warnings or prerequisites. This is complete enough for typical use but not exhaustive.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a small amount of context by explaining the overall function (filters on keystroke), which helps interpret parameters like target_region_name, but it does not detail parameter-specific behavior beyond the schema. Therefore a neutral score is appropriate.

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 resource ('search bar'), and clarifies the functional behavior (filters an IR region on keystroke via Dynamic Action), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling add_* tools like apex_add_region or apex_add_item. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 implies a use case (adding a search bar for an IR region with keystroke filtering) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, such as manually creating a text item and dynamic action, or mention prerequisites like the target region being an Interactive Report. Thus the guidance is present only by implication.

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