delete_metabase_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions 'Delete' (implying a destructive operation) and 'Deletion confirmation' (hinting at a response), it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, if it requires admin permissions, or if it affects dependent resources (e.g., cards on the dashboard).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; however, every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the action and parameter but lacks context on safety, permissions, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

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 only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clearly explaining 'dashboard_id (int): ID of the dashboard to delete.' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges).

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a dashboard from Metabase'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_by_id' (read) and 'update_metabase_dashboard' (modify) by focusing on permanent removal.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the dashboard ID from a previous operation), exclusions (e.g., not for cards or collections), or related tools like 'delete_metabase_card' for similar operations on different resources.

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