update_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the bare minimum by stating it is a write operation, captures the prior model for undo, fetches the current model, and supports dry_run. Minor omissions include permission requirements and behavior on version conflicts, but overall it is transparent.

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?

The description is well-organized with a front-loaded '[WRITE][risk=medium]' tag, then concise argument explanations. It is slightly redundant in mentioning the uid requirement twice (once in the opening sentence and again in the dashboard parameter), but otherwise every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested dashboard object, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavior adequately. It lacks details on return value or failure modes, but for common update operations it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: dashboard is clarified as a full model requiring 'uid', overwrite has a default of True, dry_run previews, and target comes from config. This gives complete meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 clearly states 'Update a Grafana dashboard' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling read/list/delete tools. It also adds context about capturing the prior model for undo, which clarifies its unique role.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool (to modify an existing dashboard) and includes important context like the required 'uid' and the overwrite/dry_run options. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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