create_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and covers important behavior: it is a mutating create operation, the dashboard is owned by the caller's Splunk user, the default visibility is private, and documentation consultation is mandatory. It doesn't detail failure modes or overwrite behavior, but 'NEW' implies non-overwrite and the core side effects are disclosed.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose, key constraints, supported formats, and documentation-first requirement are all stated directly and efficiently.

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 create action with no output schema, the description covers ownership, privacy default, supported definition formats, and the required docsConsulted flag. It omits only minor details such as the app namespace default, which the schema already documents, so an agent has enough context to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the format mapping (Studio JSON vs Classic XML) and emphasizes docsConsulted=true, but these details are also present in the input schema. Little new parameter-level meaning is added beyond emphasis.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Create a NEW dashboard') and adds distinguishing details: it is scoped to the caller's profile, private by default, and supports both Dashboard Studio JSON and Classic Simple XML. This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools like update_dashboard or create_report.

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 indicates when this tool is appropriate — when creating a new dashboard owned by the calling user — and explicitly instructs the agent to consult Splunk docs first via the splunk_docs tool. It doesn't explicitly enumerate exclusions or contrast with update_dashboard, but the 'NEW' and ownership language provides sufficient routing context.

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