create_metabase_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the tool creates something and returns metadata, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if a dashboard with the same name exists. The 'Returns' section adds some value but is basic.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The main description is a single clear sentence, and parameter explanations are efficient. Some minor verbosity in repeating 'optional' for each optional parameter, but overall very efficient.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good parameter documentation and mentions the return type. However, it lacks important context about permissions, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more for a mutation tool with no safety annotations.

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 and 7 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'Name of the dashboard', 'Dashboard description', 'Collection ID', etc.) and indicates which are optional. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Create a new dashboard in Metabase' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'copy_metabase_dashboard' or 'update_metabase_dashboard' - the agent must infer that 'create' means new vs 'copy' or 'update'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_metabase_dashboard' or 'update_metabase_dashboard'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or when this creation operation is appropriate versus other dashboard-related operations.

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