dashboards_save_dashboard_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool overwrites existing config, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail permissions, rate limits, or the effect of partial configs. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler words. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second clarifies the overwrite behavior and recommended workflow. Very efficient.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) which likely covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, given the complexity of saving dashboard config and the lack of annotations, a bit more detail about prerequisites or side effects would improve 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?

The input schema has two parameters (config and url_path) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used, missing an opportunity to add value beyond the schema structure.

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 'Save Lovelace dashboard config' and specifies that it overwrites existing config. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dashboards_get_dashboard_config and dashboards_add_card_to_view by describing a save/modify workflow.

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 explicitly recommends a workflow: use get_dashboard_config first, then modify and save. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but the workflow is sufficient.

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