delete_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real depth: the prior model is captured before delete so undo can recreate it, dry_run previews by reporting the dashboard title, and an approver can annotate the audit row without being mandatory. It discloses state capture, audit behavior, and preview semantics beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the risk tag and purpose, then behavior, then a structured Args block. The two mentions of prior-model capture are a fact and its rationale rather than dead repetition; every sentence contributes.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers the preview return ('reports the dashboard title'), the audit trail, the undo/restore mechanism, and all parameters. For a three-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden — and it does, documenting all three parameters: uid (with provenance from list_dashboards), dry_run (preview intent), and target (config name, omittable for default). Nothing in the schema is left undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a Grafana dashboard') prefixed by a [WRITE][risk=high] tag. It is trivially distinguishable from list_dashboards, get_dashboard, and update_dashboard, and the risk tag immediately signals the mutation class.

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 clear operational context: pass dry_run=True to preview, optionally set OBSERVABILITY_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY (explicitly not required), and notes uid provenance from list_dashboards. It stops short of naming undo_apply as the recovery path or stating when not to delete, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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