dashboards_save_dashboard_config

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

The description notes that the tool 'Overwrites existing config', a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or whether changes are reversible, but the overwrite behavior is communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and providing a clear workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description provides essential workflow context (get then modify then save) but lacks info on potential errors or validation. It is minimally complete for a save tool with straightforward parameters.

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 2 parameters (config, url_path) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond implying config is the dashboard config and that url_path might identify a specific dashboard. Without schema descriptions, the description should explain these parameters but does not.

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 it saves and overwrites Lovelace dashboard config, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_dashboard_config by recommending a workflow. The verb 'Save' and resource 'Lovelace dashboard config' are specific.

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 instructs to use get_dashboard_config first, then modify and save. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though alternatives are not exhaustively listed. It differentiates from siblings without being overly prescriptive.

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