dashbrr_set_ui_preference_collapse

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds that the change is per-user and that the key identifies the panel, but it does not disclose persistence, reversibility, or potential error cases (e.g., invalid key). It adds some user-specific context but not a robust behavioral picture.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence and parameter details in the second. There is no redundant information; every word 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 simple setter with two primitive parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, user scope, and parameter semantics. It omits return values and error handling, but given the low complexity of this tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'key identifies the panel' and 'collapsed toggles its state,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'toggles' is slightly ambiguous (could imply flipping current state), and it does not specify valid key values or the exact meaning of true/false for collapsed.

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 a specific action: 'Set whether a dashboard panel is collapsed for the authenticated user.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource (dashboard panel collapse state) and the user scope (authenticated user), distinguishing it from sibling getters like dashbrr_get_ui_preferences_collapse and other set tools.

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 clear context: this tool is for changing a dashboard panel's collapsed state for the authenticated user, and it explains the role of each parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as save_settings or the corresponding getter, nor does it state when not to use it. Thus it has clear context but no exclusions/alternatives.

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