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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite workflow, which is useful, but says nothing about what happens to the dashboard on failure, whether re-adding the same query duplicates a widget, or permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite chain. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and a mutation with five parameters, the description covers the essential prerequisites so an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of describing post-call behavior or error conditions, but the core guidance is sufficient.

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%, so every parameter including the displayType enum is already documented in the schema. The description restates the origin of queryId and dashboardGroupId, which the schema properties already note, adding only marginal value.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('add a query as a widget to a dashboard'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like draxlr_save_query, draxlr_run_query, or draxlr_get_dashboard. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names the prerequisite tools and the order to call them: draxlr_save_query to obtain a queryId and draxlr_list_dashboards to obtain a dashboardGroupId. This is direct when-to-use guidance tied to sibling tools rather than vague inference.

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