add_page_box

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavior: coordinates are page-relative percentages (0-100), fill accepts null for transparency, and optional text is styled via color/size/bold/align. It stops short of describing side effects or return value, but the core behavior is transparent and useful.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load purpose, then lay out coordinate/fill/text semantics and a concrete use case. There is no redundant wording, no tautology, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 basic required call, the description covers x/y/w/h and implies doc_id, and the schema provides defaults for many optional fields. But with no annotations or output schema, an agent is left without guidance on pad/font semantics or what the tool returns, so completeness is adequate but not strong for full optional use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for key parameters: x/y/w/h are explained as percentages, fill is explained as hex or transparent, and text-related style properties are listed. However, it leaves pad, font, color defaults, and the exact relationship between text and styling mostly to inference, so coverage over the 13 parameters is incomplete.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Place) and object (page-anchored box), reinforced by concrete examples (colored band, header, pull-quote callout). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_textbox or add_shape, which have different anchoring and content roles.

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?

Gives use-case context ('Great for letterheads and report headers') but never contrasts the tool with siblings such as add_textbox or add_shape. The intended conditions are implied by the page-anchored framing rather than explicitly stated, so guidance is moderate but not fully directive.

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