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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the description adds genuinely new context: dashboard attachment requires edit-dashboard permission, the query is persisted on invocation, and reason surfaces on an approval card. It does not describe the returned identifier or confirmation, but the added operational and authorization context is substantial.

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?

Front-loads the core action and dashboard attachment, then moves to prerequisites and permissions in decreasing order of importance. The trailing skill-loading sentence is useful but slightly cluttered by the repeated inline function syntax.

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 7-parameter tool with a deeply nested heatmap spec, the description covers the workflow, the permission requirement, and the persistence side effect well. With no output schema, it leaves unstated what comes back (chart or query id) and how to later modify the saved chart via update_heatmap_query, which is the remaining gap.

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 spec, dashboardId, reason, name, projectId, and environment thoroughly. The description reinforces that spec must be the exact previously-executed payload and that reason must explain the change, but those points largely restate the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — save a new heatmap query as a chart, optionally attaching it to a dashboard — and implicitly contrasts with run_heatmap_query (execute) versus update_heatmap_query (modify). An agent can distinguish this from the other create_*_query siblings because it names the heatmap resource explicitly.

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 concrete precondition for invocation: run run_heatmap_query first and pass that exact spec, plus load the manage-dashboards and heatmap-queries skills beforehand. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. 'use update_heatmap_query to modify an existing saved heatmap query'), which is the only gap.

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