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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: private keeps the underlying share list while revoking open access, shared re-enables it for exactly those people, and org opens it to the whole organization. The 'always works, and the right emergency action' note is a reliability guarantee an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

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 core action is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about a distinct mode. The middle sentence is dense with em-dash parentheticals and stacks three definitions plus an aside, which slows parsing slightly, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies what is missing: the meaning of each visibility mode and the guarantee for private. It does not say what the call returns or how the agent can verify the new audience afterward, a minor gap for a destructive mutation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the real-world effect of each enum value (private/shared/org) rather than the schema's terse 'Who should be able to see it'. The 'dashboard' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema's reference to dashboard_list, which keeps this from a 5.

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 opening sentence states a concrete verb and resource (change who can open a dashboard) and the rest defines the audience model, which separates it from listing/mutating tools like dashboard_list or dashboard_patch. It does not name specific siblings such as dashboard_share or dashboard_unshare, and the claim that individual/group picking 'cannot be done from a tool call' sits oddly beside those sibling names, leaving a small ambiguity about routing.

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?

It gives clear situational guidance for each mode, notably that 'private' is the emergency action that always works, which tells the agent when to reach for it under pressure. It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g., 'use dashboard_share_list to inspect the current audience'), so the agent must infer alternatives.

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