update_dashboard_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral restriction (the default dashboard is immutable), but says nothing about whether changes merge or replace existing metadata, what happens on an unknown url_path, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin, though the one constraint it does state is valuable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the one hard constraint; no filler. The enumeration inside parentheses is efficient, though the fragmentary style leaves some under-specification that is not strictly a conciseness problem.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source, and it covers the mutation target and one exclusion. It omits what the required url_path refers to and what a caller should expect on success or rejection, which is a gap for a two-required-parameter mutation tool nested in a large dashboard tool family.

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%, and the 'changes' parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties=true, so the description's enumeration of accepted keys (title, icon, show_in_sidebar, require_admin) is the only documentation that exists for it and adds real meaning. However, 'url_path' — a required identifier — is never explained (format, where to obtain it), leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 and resource (update dashboard metadata) and enumerates the mutable fields (title, icon, show_in_sidebar, require_admin), which is more precise than the bare tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling set_dashboard_config, leaving an agent to guess which of the two mutates which aspect of a dashboard.

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 gives one explicit exclusion — the default/Overview dashboard's metadata cannot be modified — which is genuinely useful routing information. It offers no positive when-to-use guidance relative to set_dashboard_config or the other dashboard tools, so usage is only partially implied.

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