repair_dashboard_chart_refs

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the syncing of position_json and json_metadata.chartsInScope, and details the two strategies and dry_run option. However, it does not explicitly state the mutability or reversibility of the operation.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a brief explanation of what it syncs, and a clear list of parameters with their meanings.

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?

The description adequately covers the inputs but does not describe the output or return value. Since an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description is not required to explain it, but additional context on edge cases (e.g., invalid dashboard_id) would enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters: dashboard_id as required, strategy with both enum values explained ('replace_by_name' maps stale IDs to matching names, 'remove_orphans' drops stale refs), and dry_run as a preview mechanism.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('repair') and resource ('stale chart IDs in a dashboard's layout metadata'). It is distinguishable from the sibling tool 'repair_dashboard_layout_duplicates' which targets duplicate layout entries, not chart references.

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 explains the two strategies but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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