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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds useful context beyond that: creation happens when this runs, the name must be unique, and the 'reason' surfaces on an approval card the user will read. It doesn't cover failure modes or whether the new dashboard is returned, but the added operational context is meaningful.

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?

Purpose and the collision-avoidance rule are front-loaded, followed by the chart workflow and the skill prerequisite. It's dense with four short sentences but each carries actionable content; the skill-load instruction could arguably be trimmed into the first line.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (list_dashboards, load_skill), the post-creation chart workflow, and the reason field's purpose. Only the return value or confirmation behavior is unaddressed, which is minor given the depth of guidance provided.

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 each of the 9 parameters is already documented. The description reinforces the ordering of queryIds and the uniqueness of name, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 new analytics dashboard') and adds scope detail about optionally attaching existing saved queries in order. The agent can distinguish it immediately from siblings like update_dashboard or duplicate_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?

Explicitly says to check list_dashboards first to avoid name collisions, mandates loading the manage-dashboards skill before proceeding, and spells out the follow-up workflow using create_insight_query / create_funnel_query / create_retention_query with dashboardId. This is genuine when-and-how guidance, not an implied hint.

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