Add view to dashboard

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

Annotations already declare the read/write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine mechanism detail: it reads via get_dashboard_config, appends view_config to the views list, and writes the entire dashboard back with every existing view and card round-tripped unchanged. That read-modify-write disclosure matters for a non-idempotent mutation and reassures against data loss. It does not cover auth/permissions or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then mechanism, then use/not-for, then return shape. Four tight blocks, no filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers action, mechanism, sibling routing, and return value ({"status": "saved", "url_path": ...}), which is all an agent needs to invoke it 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 100% and view_config even carries an inline example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by stating that view_config is appended to the dashboard's `views` list and that url_path identifies the target dashboard returned by dashboards_list_dashboards.

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?

States a specific verb ('append') and resource ('view to a dashboard') and immediately clarifies scope versus the sibling card-adding tools. An agent can distinguish this from dashboards_add_card_to_view and dashboards_add_section_to_view without opening a schema.

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?

Contains explicit 'Use when: adding a whole new tab/view' and 'Not for: adding a card to an existing view — use dashboards_add_card_to_view or dashboards_add_card_to_section.' This is textbook routing guidance with named alternatives.

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