repair_dashboard_layout_duplicates

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the removal action but does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens to other dashboard elements. The dry_run parameter is not explained.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. However, it is overly brief and could be restructured to include critical details like parameter usage and output.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not mention output schema contents (e.g., success message, count of duplicates removed) or the effect of dry_run, leaving gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 adds no extra meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'dry_run' (e.g., preview vs. actual removal) or provide any context beyond parameter names and types.

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 action ('Remove duplicate chart placements') and the target resource ('dashboard layout'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'repair_dashboard_chart_refs' which handles chart references rather than layout duplicates.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, how to interpret the dry_run parameter, or what to do after removal. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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