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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses two meaningful traits: the file is template-first (content is pre-filled) and is written into a new immutable strategy revision (existing files are not mutated in place, a revision snapshot is produced). It still doesn't explain that strategyId/revisionId must already exist or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded with the core action and path convention, second sentence carrying the usage trigger and follow-up steps. No filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, where, and the intended next steps. Gaps remain around the required strategyId/revisionId prerequisites and whether the two optional naming parameters are needed, which the sparse schema does not fill in.

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 only 25% — just revisionId ("Base revision ID to snapshot from"). The description partially compensates by revealing the path pattern, implying path/title are optional naming inputs, but it adds nothing about strategyId or how title maps to the filename. Baseline-level value given the low coverage.

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 (creates a dashboard file) plus the exact path convention dashboards/<name>.dashboard.js, which separates it from the generic create_file sibling. It does not explicitly name create_file/replace_file as the alternative for non-dashboard files, so differentiation is by implication rather than stated.

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 an explicit trigger ("when the user asks to create a dashboard") and a concrete follow-up workflow (get_file then patch_file to customize). What's missing is a negative case — e.g., when to use create_file or replace_file instead — but the positive guidance is strong.

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