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

Annotations only declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds real value beyond that by saying the change is saved immediately when the tool runs and that a human-readable reason appears on an approval card. It does not describe post-write response shape, but the persistence and approval semantics are useful disclosures.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by layout and prerequisite details. Every clause carries information, though the middle sentence packs default sizing, append order, save-on-run, and the reason field together in a slightly run-on way.

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 mutating dashboard-panel tool with 6 parameters (including nested gridPos) and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite skill, default layout, immediate persistence, and approval-card reason. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though an explicit contrast with add_markdown_panel would complete the picture.

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. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the default size (24x1, full width), the default placement (appended in reading order), and that text is plain text without markdown — clarifying how the optional and required string parameters behave, not just their types.

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 ('Add a section heading to a dashboard') and then defines exactly what that resource is: 'one line of plain text, drawn without a card, that titles the panels below it.' That visual/structural definition cleanly separates it from add_markdown_panel and add_query_to_dashboard.

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?

Gives a clear pre-condition (load the manage-dashboards skill via load_skill first) and explains placement behavior: appended in reading order unless gridPos overrides it. It does not explicitly contrast itself with add_markdown_panel, which is the closest ambiguous alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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