update_dashboard

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains dry_run for validation and allow_empty_layout flag, but does not explicitly state that updates are permanent or mention side effects like orphaned containers. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 a concise opening sentence followed by a clear Args list. Length is appropriate for the parameter count, but some redundancy (e.g., 'default: False' repeated) could be trimmed.

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 7 params, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary context: prerequisite tools, parameter details, and usage scenarios. Complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining each param: dashboard_id, dashboard_title, published, position_json (with layout context), json_metadata, allow_empty_layout, dry_run. Adds significant meaning beyond raw schema.

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 'Update an existing dashboard's properties' and lists key properties, distinguishing it from create/delete tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from repair or validate tools, which are siblings.

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 advises using list_dashboards to find the ID and get_dashboard to inspect current state, providing clear prerequisite context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but this is sufficient.

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