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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write nature is covered structurally. The description adds that the resulting dashboard is private by default and that a preview step should precede creation, but says nothing about required permissions, whether a preview is enforced, or what happens on failure.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its constraint front-loaded ahead of the workflow hint. Nothing here needs trimming.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is nearly complete. The one gap is that it never says what a successful call returns (such as a dashboard identifier) despite having no output schema, which the agent would need to continue a workflow.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the 1–50 block bound that minItems/maxItems already enforce and conveys that visibility is fixed to private rather than parameterized, but adds no format or content guidance for the nested block config.

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 ('Create a private dashboard') plus a scoping constraint (1–50 blocks), which separates it from siblings like report_add_block, report_duplicate_dashboard, and report_rename_dashboard. It never names a sibling outright, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Preview first' is a real workflow hint that points an agent toward report_preview_block before committing, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it is ambiguous whether preview is mandatory or merely recommended, and there is no statement of when not to use this tool.

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