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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the link/id remain stable so existing holders see the new dashboard, and validation happens before commitment so a definition that would render broken leaves the stored dashboard untouched. That failure-mode and side-effect disclosure goes well beyond the annotation set.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its key property (link stability), then the validation/failure behavior, then the recommended workflow. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials an agent needs: what is replaced, what is preserved, what happens on invalid input, and the prerequisite read step. Nothing material is missing given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 the schema already documents id, definitionJson, range and refresh, making 3 the baseline. The description adds some meaning ('the id ... as returned by mint_dashboard', link stability) but says nothing about range/refresh overrides or the definitionJson format beyond what the schema states.

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 precise verb+resource ('Replace the definition behind an existing dashboard link') and immediately clarifies the scope: the id and link are preserved while the definition is swapped. This distinguishes it cleanly from mint_dashboard (creates a new link) and delete_dashboard, without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer this over minting a second link for a dashboard the user already has,' naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one. It also prescribes a prerequisite workflow step ('Call get_dashboard first to fetch the current definition'), leaving nothing to inference.

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