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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the description does not contradict them. The description adds context about which aspects of the dashboard change (name, rotation, test customer), but discloses nothing beyond the operation scope itself—no effects on live displays, propagation behavior, or permission requirements. With annotations present, the bar is lower and this adds modest value.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the three distinct operations, and the second immediately routes to the correct sibling tools for colors and sharing. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description covers all three update operations and disambiguates against the closest siblings. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't clarify whether rotation changes apply to currently-running wall displays or note any side effects of changing the test customer on existing previews, but these are edge concerns given no output schema is expected.

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 75%, so the schema documents three of four params. The description compensates for the gap by explaining the undocumented 'name' param via 'Rename a dashboard,' and adds plain-language context for the others (auto-rotation on a screen, preview test customer). This goes beyond baseline schema restatement, though much of the semantic load is still carried by the schema's own descriptions.

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 names a specific verb (rename/set) on a specific resource (dashboard) and enumerates exactly three operations: renaming, configuring auto-rotation timing, and setting the preview test customer. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_dashboard_theme and publish_dashboard as the tools for adjacent concerns, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit routing: 'Use set_dashboard_theme for colours and publish_dashboard for sharing,' which provides clear when-not-to-use guidance for the two most confusable siblings. It clearly implies when to use this tool (rename, rotation, preview customer), though it doesn't enumerate alternatives like set_dashboard_formatting or reorder_views among the many dashboard-related siblings.

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