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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the Overview dashboard is protected and will fail — but says nothing about recoverability (restore_deleted exists as a sibling) or required permissions.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the protected-Overview constraint is stated immediately after the core action so the agent reads the exclusion before calling.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is roughly adequate: action, scope and the Overview exclusion are all present. The missing pieces — how to identify a dashboard id and whether deletion is reversible — are the ones an agent would most need.

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% for the single required parameter 'id', so the schema gives the agent no meaning at all. The description does not explain that this is a dashboard identifier or where to obtain one (list_dashboards, get_dashboard), leaving the only parameter undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a custom dashboard') and narrows scope with 'custom', which separates it from read/update siblings like get_dashboard and update_dashboard. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clause 'The Overview can't be deleted' gives one concrete when-not condition, which is useful guardrail guidance. However, it never says when this tool should be chosen over alternatives (e.g. hiding vs deleting, or that restore_deleted can undo it), so usage is only partially implied.

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