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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by spelling out exactly what the destruction means: queries omitted from queryIds are detached from the dashboard but the saved queries themselves are not deleted, and markdown/image panels are kept. It also states the change is persisted on run and that reason is shown on an approval card. It stops short of describing return values or failure modes, but for an annotated mutation this is strong disclosure.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the mutation scope, then prerequisites, then the destructive semantics, then alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though it is dense and the skill-loading instruction plus the approvals note make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite read, the skill requirement, the precise effect on panels and queries, the persistence behavior, and the correct sibling for each related task. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely and correctly is missing.

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 67%, so several parameters already carry their own docs (name uniqueness, color hex, projectId/environment discovery via list_projects). The description adds semantics the schema can't: queryIds must be the COMPLETE ordered list and omitting it leaves queries unchanged, plus the instruction to explain the change in reason. Minor params like description and icon get no extra treatment here, but their schema text is adequate.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Rename a dashboard, edit its description, icon or color, and/or set its complete ordered list of saved queries"), enumerates every editable field, and explicitly names the siblings it is not (update_dashboard_layout, add_query_to_dashboard, remove_query_from_dashboard). An agent can distinguish it from create_dashboard, duplicate_dashboard, and move_dashboard without opening any schema.

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 preconditions ("Read it with get_dashboard first", load the manage-dashboards skill first) and routes to alternatives with stated conditions: layout work goes to update_dashboard_layout, and "For a single add or remove, add_query_to_dashboard / remove_query_from_dashboard are simpler". This is a full when/when-not/alternative map.

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