add_chart_to_dashboard

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: confirm=true is required to write, indicating a two-phase (preview/commit) operation. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, and since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden of transparency for this significant behavior.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the critical confirmation constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has a simple parameter set, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential operational nuance (preview vs. write) and is sufficient for an agent to understand the core behavior, though it omits details like return values or side effects, which are less critical at this complexity level.

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?

The description adds meaning to the confirm parameter by explaining its role in writing, but it does not describe chart_id or dashboard_ids, relying on their self-explanatory names. With 0% schema description coverage, this is only partial compensation for the parameter semantics gap.

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 uses clear verbs 'Preview' and 'add' with a specific resource ('a chart to one or more dashboards'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dashboard_charts or create_dashboard. The scope of action is explicit and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (for previewing or adding charts to dashboards) and emphasizes the confirm=true requirement for writing, which guides safe invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from related tools.

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