append_dashboard_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only signals a mutation via 'append' and shows a sample view shape; it says nothing about permissions, ordering/index behavior, what happens to existing views, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and follows with a single illustrative example; nothing is wasted. The '::' punctuation is awkward but does not impede comprehension.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage needs more than this. The view example is helpful, but url_path, return behavior, and error handling are all absent.

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 0%, so the schema does not help. The description partially compensates by giving a concrete example of the free-form 'view' object (title/path/icon/cards), but it gives no explanation of 'url_path' at all, leaving one of two required parameters fully opaque.

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 ('append'), resource ('view'), and target ('dashboard'), so an agent can immediately grasp the operation. It implicitly differs from siblings like replace_dashboard_view and delete_dashboard_view via the verb, but never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 verb 'append' weakly implies a use case (adding rather than replacing a view), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to replace_dashboard_view, set_dashboard_config, or create_dashboard.

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