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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds only the optional-tiles capability; it says nothing about response contents (e.g. the created id) or about the overwrite-via-repeated-id behavior, which the schema carries instead.

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?

A single economical sentence with the action and the optional scope front-loaded; there is no filler, hedging, or repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing what comes back (the dashboard object or its id) and whether tile ids must be unique within the request. The description is accurate but thin relative to the tool's nesting and creation semantics.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already explains the id overwrite semantics, the name, and the tile shape with a pointer to list_dashboard_tile_types. The description contributes only the word "optionally" for tiles (tiles are indeed not required) and adds no format or constraint detail 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?

"Create a custom dashboard, optionally with its tiles" states a specific verb and resource, and the word "create" cleanly separates it from update_dashboard, get_dashboard, and list_dashboards. It stops short of naming those siblings or clarifying the relationship to add_dashboard_tile.

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 "optionally with its tiles" implies the agent may bundle tiles into creation rather than calling add_dashboard_tile afterwards, which is an implied routing hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of when update_dashboard is the better call, and no stated prerequisites.

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