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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the edit-access requirement and the effect of enabling the agent's tools on the dashboard, which is useful context. It does not disclose whether attaching is additive vs. replacing existing connections, but it is not misleading.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, and the parenthetical clarifications ('data sources', 'requires edit access') earn their place. It is efficient without being terse to the point of ambiguity.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key prerequisite (edit access). It falls short of complete because it doesn't state whether the attachment replaces or appends to existing connections, and there is no mention of validation effects or error conditions. Still adequate for an agent to attempt the call correctly.

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 0%, but the parameter names are strongly self-descriptive: artifactId clearly refers to the dashboard and connection_id to the data source. The description maps 'connections (data sources)' to connection_id and 'dashboard' to artifactId, providing just enough disambiguation. Since param names carry most of the meaning, a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Attach'), a resource ('connections/data sources'), and a target ('a Duvo Pulse dashboard'), and adds the agent-relevant outcome ('so the agent can use its tools'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like detachPulseDashboardConnection, though it doesn't name that sibling 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?

The description implies the usage context: attaching an existing connection to a dashboard, and it parenthetically adds the prerequisite 'requires edit access'. However, it does not state when to prefer this over listPulseDashboardConnections or createConnection, nor give any exclusions or alternatives.

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