Save Lovelace dashboard config

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with that ('create or replace'). It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the two environment flags required for the call to succeed, which an agent otherwise could not know.

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, front-loaded with the action and replace semantics, then the config explanation and hard prerequisites. No filler.

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 write tool with no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description covers action, scope, and auth prerequisites well. It stops short of what happens to an existing dashboard's views on replace, but that is a minor gap given the destructiveHint annotation already signals overwrite risk.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The one gloss it offers ('config' is the dashboard body with title, views) largely restates the schema's own description and adds no new format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('save', clarified as create-or-replace) and resource ('the Lovelace configuration for a dashboard'), which cleanly separates it from ha_create_dashboard, ha_get_dashboard, and ha_delete_dashboard in the sibling list.

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?

It supplies a hard precondition (HA_ALLOW_WRITE=true and HA_ALLOW_CONFIG_WRITE=true), which is genuinely useful, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings like ha_create_dashboard or ha_set_automation. The 'create it first with ha_create_dashboard' routing lives in the schema, not the description.

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