Save a dashboard filter

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the critical behavioral fact that nothing is executed unless confirm: true and that there is no server-side dry run. That is exactly the kind of mutation-safety context annotations do not carry, though it overlaps the schema's confirm description and omits side effects like duplicate-name handling.

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 compact sentences with the write gate front-loaded right after the purpose. The parenthetical '(this operation has no server-side dry run)' is slightly awkward next to the stated dry-run preview behavior, which costs a point.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety gate but not the return shape, the meaning of kind values, or idempotency behavior. An agent could invoke it correctly only by reading the nested schema closely.

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?

The required 'body' object (kind enum, name bounds, free-form config) is the hardest part of this schema and the description says nothing about it beyond the phrase 'dashboard filter'. With only 67% schema coverage, the description needs to compensate for the nested, undocumented body and does not.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Save a dashboard filter') plus the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/saved-views), so an agent knows this creates a persisted filter. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like savedViews_list or savedViews_delete, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it (persisting a dashboard filter) and flags the confirm gate, but it never states when to prefer savedViews_list/savedViews_delete or what preconditions exist. Usage is inferred from the verb and name rather than spelled out.

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