dashboards_insert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the permission requirement and the upsert nature ('Insert or update'). However, it does not explain side effects, such as whether existing dashboards are fully replaced, what happens on missing global_id (though a note exists in the schema), or what the API returns. The large example provides structural guidance but not behavioral depth.

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 prose portion is concise and front-loaded, with the action, permission, and endpoint clearly stated. The example is lengthy but earns its place as it illustrates a complex nested structure. No wasted sentences, though the overall length is substantial due to the example.

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 complex tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description should explain expected return values, error conditions, and potentially point to related tools like dashboards_get. It mentions the source of data but does not describe the output or post-conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the full behavior.

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 schema description coverage at 0% and only one top-level parameter, the description compensates by providing a detailed example request body that illustrates the expected structure of request_data. It also clarifies that the data should come from the Get dashboards API. However, it doesn't explain each parameter's semantics explicitly, but the example is comprehensive enough to guide correct usage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Insert or update dashboards'. It further clarifies the scope by specifying 'Add or update the dashboards retrieved by the Get dashboards API.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashboards_get and dashboards_delete.

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 clear context that this tool is for adding or updating dashboards and references the Get dashboards API as the source of the data. It also mentions the required Instance Administrator permission, giving important usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like widgets_insert, so it stops short of a 5.

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