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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the file is created 'in a new immutable strategy revision' and is template-first, which tells the agent the operation snapshots rather than mutates existing content and must be customized afterward.

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 tightly written sentences with the creation outcome and path front-loaded, followed by the usage/workflow guidance. No filler or restated annotations.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema and sparse parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and workflow but omits what the agent should expect on success (returned revision info, resulting file reference) and how required strategyId/revisionId semantics work together. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25% (only revisionId has a description), so the description must compensate but largely does not. It clarifies the path/name convention (dashboards/<name>.dashboard.js) but leaves strategyId and title unexplained, and gives no guidance on how revisionId as the snapshot base interacts with file creation.

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 ('Creates') plus resource ('template-first dashboard file') and the exact target path pattern 'dashboards/<name>.dashboard.js'. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling create_file and lets an agent know it is producing a dashboard starter, not a generic file.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'when the user asks to create a dashboard' and names the follow-on workflow (get_file then patch_file to customize from the template). It lacks an explicit exclusion such as when to prefer create_file instead, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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