dashy_add_section

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. It does not explain what happens upon adding (e.g., whether the section is appended, if existing sections are affected, or what the response contains). The description is limited to stating the purpose and a parameter requirement, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and the key required parameter. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool involves nested objects and an additional filename parameter that are not explained. The description fails to clarify the role of 'filename' or how the section object integrates with the existing configuration. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context, especially given the complexity of the input schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing common keys for the 'section' object (name, icon, items, displayData) and noting that 'name' is required. However, it provides no information about the 'filename' parameter, which is a notable gap given there are only two parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a new section (a group of tiles) to the dashboard'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_section, delete_section, and get_section. The parenthetical explanation of what a section is adds clarity.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to add a new section to the dashboard. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use update_section for existing sections'), but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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