update_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two significant behaviors: it pre-checks edit access and refuses if ACL denies write, and it requires docsConsulted=true. These go beyond the schema and are valuable for an agent. It does not mention replacement semantics (that the definition replaces the entire existing one) or what the success response looks like, which are gaps, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It follows a logical order: purpose, behavioral trait, requirement, and policy. Each sentence adds value, though the documentation-first instruction is somewhat verbose and could be tightened. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is not fully complete. It does not state that the definition parameter replaces the entire existing definition (a critical semantic), nor does it describe the success return value or other failure modes beyond ACL denial. The access check and documentation requirement are covered, but an agent would still be uncertain about the full scope of the operation.

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 description reinforces the docsConsulted requirement ('Requires docsConsulted=true') and the documentation-first policy, but these are already captured in the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Update an EXISTING dashboard's definition,' which is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_dashboard. The word 'EXISTING' signals the key differentiator, and the focus on 'definition' narrows the scope to the dashboard's content rather than its metadata.

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 states the tool is for existing dashboards, which implies it is not for creation, and the context of sibling tools (create_dashboard, get_dashboard) reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or provide a 'when not to use' clause, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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