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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the organization-wide sharing side effect, that names are non-unique, the returned payload (_id and url), and the plan-limit failure mode with its error message. That is exactly the mutation-consequence context annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then workflow, then return value, then failure mode. Each sentence earns its place, though the workflow sentence is densely packed and could be split for scanning.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself, and for a mutating create tool it covers side effects, naming rules, follow-up tools, and the quota failure. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 three parameters are already documented, including projectId's source. The description adds one genuinely new constraint, that two dashboards may share a name, but nothing about the optional description field or format expectations. Baseline 3 fits.

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 an empty dashboard in a project') plus the scope of who sees it. The word 'empty' plus the pointer to fastero_save_chart / fastero_update_dashboard for populating it separates this cleanly from fastero_create_report, fastero_create_page and the other create_* siblings.

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?

Explains the workflow: create empty here, then add charts via fastero_save_chart or place existing reports via fastero_update_dashboard. It gives clear context for when this tool is the right entry point but does not state explicit exclusions or say when to prefer creating a report instead.

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