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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation, so the description owes context beyond that: whether the update replaces or merges fields, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether nulls clear fields (this only appears in the schema), and what the response returns. It provides none of this, merely restating that something is changed.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted wording and the core action front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification for a mutation tool with a free-form nested payload. It is efficiently written rather than appropriately sized.

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?

The tool mutates a nested, schema-opaque object and has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what fields are valid and how partial updates behave. It does neither, and gives no pointer to discovery tools such as list_dashboard_tile_types or get_dashboard.

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 coverage at 33%, the description needs to compensate and does not. It adds zero meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with an untyped additionalProperties bag and no hint about valid tile fields or where to discover them.

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?

"Change one tile on a dashboard" names a specific verb (change) and resource (a single dashboard tile), which distinguishes it from the neighbouring add_dashboard_tile, remove_dashboard_tile and update_dashboard tools. It is clear but minimal — it says nothing about what aspects of the tile are changeable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than add_dashboard_tile, remove_dashboard_tile, update_dashboard, or list_dashboard_tile_types. No preconditions are stated (e.g. that the tile must already exist, or that a dashboard/tile id must be obtained first via get_dashboard or list_dashboards).

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