Create and manage KPI dashboards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether operations are destructive, what happens when dashboards are deleted, or any side effects. The description simply repeats the tool's purpose without behavioral context.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to front-load critical information and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond what's already in the tool name and title. Every word should provide new information, but this description doesn't.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's multi-action nature, explain relationships between parameters, or provide any context about what 'managing' KPI dashboards entails in this specific system.

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 schema description coverage is 80%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with high schema coverage, this doesn't create a significant gap. The description doesn't compensate for the 20% coverage gap, but the schema does most of the work documenting the 5 parameters and their relationships.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 18 sibling tools including ui-dashboard-composer and business-intelligence-insights, there's no indication of how this KPI-focused tool differs or when it should be preferred over other dashboard or analytics tools.

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