replace_dashboard_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace' hints that an existing card is overwritten, but nothing states what is lost, whether the operation is idempotent, whether indices shift after replacement, or what permissions are needed. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb/resource lead the sentence. It is concise, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

With four required parameters, a 0%-documented (and free-form) nested card object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies none of the addressing or payload context an agent needs to invoke this correctly. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% across all four required parameters. The description says nothing about url_path, view_index, card_index, or the free-form nested 'card' object (additionalProperties: true), leaving the agent with no idea what shape the replacement payload must take or how indices are addressed.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pairing ('replace a specific card') and scopes it to 'within a view', which separates it from list-level tools. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings append_dashboard_card and delete_dashboard_card, all of which operate on cards within views.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over append_dashboard_card (add vs. subsume) or set_dashboard_config (bulk rewrite), and no prerequisites for locating the target view/card. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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