panel_track

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

Annotations already carry a rich profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the burden. The description adds the persistence path (<config>/panels/<name>.json), but never states whether action=save overwrites an existing panel — a meaningful omission for a write operation despite idempotentHint=true.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences: purpose, concept definition, per-action usage, and storage location. The scope is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, actions, and storage. The only real gap is the relationship to panel_run, which is absent but not strictly required to call the tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents name, action, domain, and queries, including the enum values. The description's action guidance is reinforcing rather than additive, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives three specific verbs (save, load, list) applied to a clearly named resource (named query panels) and even defines what a panel is with a concrete example. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling panel_run, which an agent could easily confuse for the execute-side of this feature.

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?

It maps each action value to its purpose ('action=save with queries[] to create, action=load to read, action=list to enumerate'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to panel_run as the alternative for running a panel.

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