copy_metabase_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool copies a dashboard and describes parameters, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the copy is immediate or asynchronous, what happens if the source dashboard doesn't exist, or whether there are rate limits. The 'is_deep_copy' parameter hint is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The opening sentence states the core purpose concisely. The parameter explanations are efficient, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific about what 'new dashboard metadata' includes. Overall, it's front-loaded and wastes little space.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, it lacks context about permissions, error conditions, and how this tool relates to siblings. Given the complexity of dashboard copying operations, more behavioral context would be helpful despite the parameter documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies optional vs required parameters and provides semantic context for each (e.g., 'is_deep_copy' copies linked cards). However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints like valid ID ranges or name length limits.

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 the verb 'copy' and resource 'dashboard', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_metabase_dashboard' by specifying it's a copy operation rather than creating from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other dashboard-related tools like 'update_metabase_dashboard' or 'get_dashboard_by_id'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_metabase_dashboard' and 'update_metabase_dashboard', there's no indication whether this should be used for duplicating existing dashboards versus creating new ones from templates or modifying existing ones. The description is purely functional without contextual guidance.

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