manage_tabs

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the behavior of each operation: Appsmith generates tab ids and creates child Canvases for 'add'; 'remove' expects tab ids; 'reorder' expects full list. It reveals the auto-generation and overriding logic. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameters. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite good parameter coverage, the description lacks information about return values (e.g., success indication, errors). It does not explain what happens on invalid input. Given the complexity of tab management, additional context about the result or edge cases would be beneficial.

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 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains that 'add' entries are objects with an optional label, and describes the effects. For 'remove' and 'reorder', it clarifies they are lists of tab ids. Widget_id is not elaborated but is self-explanatory.

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 purpose: adding, removing, or reordering tabs on a TABS_WIDGET. It uses specific verbs and a specific resource, and the sibling tools list shows distinct alternatives like manage_table_columns, making differentiation easy.

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 explains how to use the tool (e.g., structure of add entries) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like add_widgets or reparent_widgets. The context implies it is only for tabs, but no when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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